You are what you read?
Joy Yourcenar
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
Koran might get you looked at twice.
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx
j r sherman
penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
>
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
>625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
>
>Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
>business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
>on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
>Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
>Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
>
>So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
>books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
>Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
>Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
>Koran might get you looked at twice.
>
>Joy
>
if i might, yojo, let me post the article in it's entirety, just in case those
who come later to the thread won't be able to connect to the link(sometimes
Yahoo stuff disappears quickly).
this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point to it, it's
not the place you left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Monitors Terror Reading
Tue Jun 25, 1:40 AM ET
By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Across the nation, FBI ( news - web sites) investigators are
quietly visiting libraries and checking the reading records of people they
suspect of being in league with terrorists, library officials say.
The FBI effort, authorized by the anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11
attacks, is the first broad government check of library records since the 1970s,
when prosecutors reined in the practice for fear of abuses.
A Justice Department ( news - web sites) official in the civil rights division
and FBI officials declined to comment Monday, except to note that such searches
are now legal under the Patriot Act that President Bush ( news - web sites)
signed last October.
Libraries across the nation were reluctant to discuss their dealings with the
FBI. The same law that makes the searches legal also makes it a criminal offense
for librarians to reveal the details or extent of the contact.
But the University of Illinois conducted a survey of 1,020 public libraries in
January and February and found that 85 libraries had been asked by federal or
local law enforcement officers for information about patrons related to Sept.
11, said Ed Lakner, assistant director of research at the school's Library
Research Center.
The libraries that reported FBI contacts were nearly all in large urban areas.
Judith Krug, the American Library Association's director for intellectual
freedom, tells worried librarians who call that they should keep only the
records they need and should discard records that would reveal which patron
checked out a book and for how long.
She is frustrated by the hate mail she says she receives when she speaks out
against the Patriot Act.
"People are scared and they think that by giving up their rights, especially
their right to privacy, they will be safe," Krug said. "But it wasn't the right
to privacy that let terrorists into our nation. It had nothing to do with
libraries or library records."
Kari Hanson, director of the Bridgeview Public Library in suburban Chicago, said
an FBI agent came seeking information about a person, but her library had no
record of the person. Federal prosecutors allege Global Relief Foundation, an
Islamic charity based in the Chicago suburb, has ties to Osama bin Laden ( news
- web sites)'s terror network
"Patron information is sacrosanct here," Hanson said. "It's nobody's business
what you read."
In Florida, Broward County library director Sam Morrison said the FBI had
recently contacted his office. He declined to elaborate on the request or how
many branch libraries were involved.
"We've heard from them and that's all I can tell you," Morrison said. He said
the FBI specifically instructed him not to reveal any information about the
request.
The library system has been contacted before. A week after the Sept. 11 attacks,
the FBI subpoenaed Morrison to provide information on the possible use of
computer terminals by some of the suspected hijackers in the Hollywood, Fla.,
area.
In October, investigators revisited the county's main library in Fort Lauderdale
and checked a regional library in Coral Springs.
At least 15 of the 19 hijackers had Florida connections.
The process by which the FBI gains access to library records is quick and mostly
secret under the Patriot Act.
First, the FBI must obtain a search warrant from a court that meets in secret to
hear the agency's case. The FBI must show it has reason to suspect that a person
is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot — far less difficult than
meeting the tougher legal standards of probable cause, required for traditional
search warrants.
With the warrant, FBI investigators can visit a library and gain immediate
access to the records.
Bookstores also can have their records searched by the FBI. Two major
booksellers organizations knew of no cases in which stores had been contacted by
the FBI. Booksellers Amazon, Barnes & Noble and B. Dalton declined to comment.
"What's so frustrating is that we're supposed to be watchdogs over the
government's use of power," said Chris Finan, director of the American
Booksellers for Free Expression. "But there is so much secrecy that we can't
even tell what the government is doing or how much its doing it."
Some libraries said they will still resist government efforts to obtain records.
Pat McCandless, assistant director for public services for Ohio State
University's libraries, said, "State law and professional ethics say we do not
convey patron information and that is still our stance.
"To the best of our ability, we would try to support patron confidentiality,"
she said.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
sophie
>In article <3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
>penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
>>
>>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
>>625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
>>
>>Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
>>business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
>>on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
>>Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
>>Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
>>
>>So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
>>books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
>>Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
>>Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
>>Koran might get you looked at twice.
>>
>>Joy
>>
>
>if i might, yojo, let me post the article in it's entirety, just in case those
>who come later to the thread won't be able to connect to the link(sometimes
>Yahoo stuff disappears quickly).
>
>this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point to it, it's
>not the place you left.
as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
--
sophie
Joshua P. Hill
penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com (Joy Yourcenar) wrote:
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
>625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
>
>Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
>business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
>on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
>Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
>Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
>
>So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
>books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
>Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
>Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
>Koran might get you looked at twice.
Other books sure to get you classified as a terrorist:
George Bush is Less Than a Genius
SUV's Aren't Particularly Beneficial to the Atmosphere
Dick Cheney's Generosity is Inferior to God's
How the Republicans Less Than Won the Presidential Election
Josh
j r sherman
>
>j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> said
>>In article <3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
>>penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
>>>625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
>>>
>>>Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
>>>business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
>>>on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
>>>Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
>>>Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
>>>
>>>So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
>>>books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
>>>Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
>>>Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
>>>Koran might get you looked at twice.
>>>
>>>Joy
>>>
>>
>>if i might, yojo, let me post the article in it's entirety, just in case those
>>who come later to the thread won't be able to connect to the link(sometimes
>>Yahoo stuff disappears quickly).
>>
>>this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point to it, it's
>>not the place you left.
>
>as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
in a word, yes. the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for a number US
citizens, especially after we were told by the current not-elected
administration that this would not happen. now we have the FBI searching library
records to see what we're reading, "but only for suspected terrorists", what
ever that means. we also have John Ashcroft, a man still bitter because he lost
an election to a dead guy, telling us that if we don't agree with his tactics
and ideas that we're aiding terrorism, i.e. being in favor of the US
constitution makes us terrorists.
if that ain't New McCarthyism, what is? now, all the un-elected (i need to keep
reminding everyone of that fact) administration has to do is claim "something"
aids terrorism, and poof, now that "something" is wrong and evil!
civil rights? it aids terrorism. poof! they're gone.
right to privacy? it aids terrorism. poof! it's gone.
certain books? it aids terrorism. poof! they're gone.
i've noticed in history that once something stupid starts rolling, it's very
hard to stop.
anyway, you are correct in your assessments, Ms. Sophie. we live in
NeoMcCarthyite times. as i've stated before, to many Brits, regardless of what
you feel about PM Tony Blair, you haven't got a CLUE how fucking lucky you are.
love and kisses,
j r
"(Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
You've seen start and you've seen quit
(I'm addressing the table of content)
I always thought of you as quick
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)"
REM
sherman
j r sherman
don't forget American Heritage's Guide to the US Consitution.
sophie
we have a thing called the Criminal Justice Act (I wasted much of my
time as a student demonstrating against it and appearing in court a
character witness for hapless loons who got arrested in said demos)
which basically reinstated the sus ("on suspicion of" for non-brits)
laws, allowing the government - as represented by our always pure and
incorruptible police - to arrest people on suspicion of committing,
planning or conspiring to commit terrorist acts, amongst other things.
here, ion the bad old days, being irish used to be enough (old joke "the
nice thing about being irish in london is no-one knows you're black
[they should have added "and armed with semtex"] until you open your
mouth"). apart from using the Act to stop adults taking drugs in large
groups and partying outdoors it hasn't been used as much as we feared,
but the possibility is still there. Maggie's legacy, loopy old cow.
>
>if that ain't New McCarthyism, what is?
is this a well-used phrase? if not, I recommend you patent it before the
uk liberal media gets hold of it. neo-McCarthyism has an even more
convincing ring.
> now, all the un-elected (i need to keep
>reminding everyone of that fact) administration has to do is claim "something"
>aids terrorism, and poof, now that "something" is wrong and evil!
I try very hard not to comment on other countries' politics in
international forums. when I break this resolution I invariably regret
it.
>
>civil rights? it aids terrorism.
absolutely. dangerous free-thinkers who do not toe acceptable standards
of behaviour (see also homosexuals, muslims (good bed-fellows that they
are) jews, gypsies - oops, sorry) breed doubt in government and as such
eat at the fabric of society and should therefore be eradicated.
where was I?
>poof! they're gone.
>
>right to privacy? it aids terrorism. poof! it's gone.
>
>certain books? it aids terrorism. poof! they're gone.
BURN THOSE BOOKS, COMRADE AND CITIZEN!
>
>i've noticed in history that once something stupid starts rolling, it's very
>hard to stop.
>
>anyway, you are correct in your assessments, Ms. Sophie. we live in
>NeoMcCarthyite times. as i've stated before, to many Brits, regardless of what
>you feel about PM Tony Blair, you haven't got a CLUE how fucking lucky you are.
oh, we do.
we still hate the smarmy little git, but we do. we just (being british)
don;t like to yank our american brethren's chain in public, unlike
Martijn; who has an impeccably liberal constitution to hide behind.
(that's in theory. practice doesn't always work that way).
>love and kisses,
don't you mean "most sincerely"?
this is aapc. or is the aapc sig recessive?
--
sophie
Joy Yourcenar
<sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
***>this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point
to it, it's
***>not the place you left.
***
***as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy
here?
It was the House UnAmerican Literature Committee that gave it away,
wasn't it?
Chuck Lysaght
> In article <3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
> penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
> >
> >
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
> >625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
> >
> >Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
> >business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
> >on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
> >Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
> >Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
> >
> >So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
> >books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
> >Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
> >Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
> >Koran might get you looked at twice.
> >
> >Joy
> >
>
> if i might, yojo, let me post the article in it's entirety, just in case those
> who come later to the thread won't be able to connect to the link(sometimes
> Yahoo stuff disappears quickly).
>
> this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point to it, it's
> not the place you left.
Heh-heh. j r, you're such a dumbass. I support the Bush. I support the
Patriot Act. We're at war, you stupid fuck. Get you head out of the
clouds.
> is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot - far less difficult than
j r sherman
>>>as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
>>
>>in a word, yes. the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for a number US
>>citizens, especially after we were told by the current not-elected
>>administration that this would not happen. now we have the FBI
>>searching library
>>records to see what we're reading, "but only for suspected terrorists", what
>>ever that means. we also have John Ashcroft, a man still bitter because he lost
>>an election to a dead guy, telling us that if we don't agree with his tactics
>>and ideas that we're aiding terrorism, i.e. being in favor of the US
>>constitution makes us terrorists.
>
>we have a thing called the Criminal Justice Act (I wasted much of my
>time as a student demonstrating against it and appearing in court a
>character witness for hapless loons who got arrested in said demos)
>which basically reinstated the sus ("on suspicion of" for non-brits)
>laws, allowing the government - as represented by our always pure and
>incorruptible police - to arrest people on suspicion of committing,
>planning or conspiring to commit terrorist acts, amongst other things.
>here, ion the bad old days, being irish used to be enough (old joke "the
>nice thing about being irish in london is no-one knows you're black
>[they should have added "and armed with semtex"] until you open your
>mouth"). apart from using the Act to stop adults taking drugs in large
>groups and partying outdoors it hasn't been used as much as we feared,
>but the possibility is still there. Maggie's legacy, loopy old cow.
i've read of that law. let's hope they don't use it any more. i'm still hoping
that someone here is gonna try to force these civil rights issues with the
Supreme Court. i think eventually they will, but in the mean time we'll have
people locked up for no reason, the privacy of our citizen invaded, the fabric
of what makes this country good torn apart by a collection of ignorant clowns
who don't know what they're doing.
>>if that ain't New McCarthyism, what is?
>
>is this a well-used phrase? if not, I recommend you patent it before the
>uk liberal media gets hold of it. neo-McCarthyism has an even more
>convincing ring.
i doubt i've coined it, but if i have, i now have witnesses! :D
>> now, all the un-elected (i need to keep
>>reminding everyone of that fact) administration has to do is claim "something"
>>aids terrorism, and poof, now that "something" is wrong and evil!
>
>I try very hard not to comment on other countries' politics in
>international forums. when I break this resolution I invariably regret
>it.
i have an opinion on the politics of the UK, though it might not be as informed
as yours. i find the views of others concerning our unelected president
fascinating. mostly i love it when non-US folks say:
"How in the FUCK can that moron be President?"
>>civil rights? it aids terrorism.
>
>absolutely. dangerous free-thinkers who do not toe acceptable standards
>of behaviour (see also homosexuals, muslims (good bed-fellows that they
>are) jews, gypsies - oops, sorry) breed doubt in government and as such
>eat at the fabric of society and should therefore be eradicated.
>where was I?
1937 Nuremberg? heh.
>>poof! they're gone.
>>
>>right to privacy? it aids terrorism. poof! it's gone.
>>
>>certain books? it aids terrorism. poof! they're gone.
>
>BURN THOSE BOOKS, COMRADE AND CITIZEN!
hey, John Ashcroft, the Attorney General of the US, is known to feel that Harry
Potter books are covertly teaching witchcraft to kids. though he has not said
this publically.
>>i've noticed in history that once something stupid starts rolling, it's very
>>hard to stop.
>>
>>anyway, you are correct in your assessments, Ms. Sophie. we live in
>>NeoMcCarthyite times. as i've stated before, to many Brits, regardless of what
>>you feel about PM Tony Blair, you haven't got a CLUE how fucking lucky you are.
>
>oh, we do.
>we still hate the smarmy little git, but we do. we just (being british)
>don;t like to yank our american brethren's chain in public, unlike
>Martijn; who has an impeccably liberal constitution to hide behind.
>(that's in theory. practice doesn't always work that way).
benders... (sigh) what DOES work the way it's suppose to? Benders is like the
Berkeley liberal. all full of leftist desires, until it affects him directly or
you disagree with him, then he turns into the worst Nazi you've ever seen.
>>love and kisses,
>
>don't you mean "most sincerely"?
>this is aapc. or is the aapc sig recessive?
i saw this first when Yojo posted it in RAP! :)
love and kisses,
j r sherman
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> said
> >In article <3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
> >penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
> >>625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
> >>
> >>Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
> >>business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
> >>on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
> >>Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
> >>Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
> >>
> >>So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
> >>books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
> >>Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
> >>Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
> >>Koran might get you looked at twice.
> >>
> >>Joy
> >>
> >
> >if i might, yojo, let me post the article in it's entirety, just in case those
> >who come later to the thread won't be able to connect to the link(sometimes
> >Yahoo stuff disappears quickly).
> >
> >this IS chilling. as i told you, don't come home, there's no point to it, it's
> >not the place you left.
>
> as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
Who was an echo of Hitler, who was an echo of..., who was an echo of
Plato.
Note that none of them ever did anything about terrorsits,
enemies, criminals, etc. But Hitler killed ca. 800 university
professors in 1934, and McCarthy kept offering to do the same.
I'm a pig-iggerant Minnesotan, but I fail to find any difference
among rounding up Jews, rounding up Muslims, and rounding up voters
registered to a party you "don't like."
But I'm not going to worry about it; this is the U.S.ofA., and our
13th Amendment says there's no such thing as a policeman in the
U.S.ofA., so the little boys' club that is the FBI can watch its
collective mouth before I teach it the meaning of the phrase, "Don't
shoot your mouth off."
[Matthew 15:11 -- "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man;
but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (NKJV) The
actual word is "die(s) of," i.e., "You don't die of what you put
into your mouth, you die of what comes out of it." The English
"defiles" is carefully meaningless, because the priests don't want
to die of what comes out of their mouths, cf. "/maleficos non
patieris vivere/, elsewhere.]
Oh, they can say "Well, He Said...," but the 1st Amendment seZ
they can call their priests anything they want to call their priests
-- except /my/ priests.
And even their /Mommies/ are not Holy enough to anoint their
unders over (which fact the Constitution also acknowledges in the
bit about "no titles of nobility").
Let us not rail about justice so long as we have arms and the
moxie to use them.
Let us rather remember that Hitler was also a puppet of his
speechwriters, and was renowned for his "charisma" even though he
couldn't speak without them.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
The moving cursor writes, and having writ,
blinks on.
http://scrawlmark.net
CrusaderRaider
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v5vHiOJt...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> said
> >In article <+t+D3iCo...@blueyonder.co.uk>, sophie says...
> >>
> >>j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> said
> >>>In article <3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
> >>>penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>>
Were you aware that Mi5 intercepts and stores every single e-mail
that passes through the UK, and can word search them all?
And I like that law you Brits have forcing the accused to give up
pgp passwords, it's a crime to forget them I heard?
CR
Dennis M. Hammes
Well, aside from the fact that any "writ" is a Brit law, and /habeas
corpus/ is specifically Brit, it doesn't bother me all that much.
Any babies suck each other and agree to "abolish," I'll just fall
back on /habeas gladius/, which the 2nd Amendment reminds these
babies they /can't/ "suspend" or "abolish" -- i.e., /with what?/
"Suspend" my Constitution? With a /servant/? Lissen, Kiddies,
conspiracy to mutiny is a summary capital offense. And, I can
suspend things, too. Sisal is 15 cents a foot at the True Value.
And I don't /need/ my neighbors' "permission," since I already have
the "suspender's" (heh). And whether he's sovereign or servant,
/he/ seZ he's De Law.
I hear and obey, O Effendi.
Dennis M. Hammes
You were commenting on the creation of a National Home Police
(/Geheim Staats Polizei/, abbr. "Gestapo") to protect some darling
domestic religion from some nasty middle-eastern religion. But you
got mixed up when you couldn't distinguish ours from yours.
Don't worry, I followed you; I think most did, though the
adjectives and line breaks are confusing. Rhyme would help; it
always has, traditionally. Cf. your (well, Brit's) own:
So well-bred spaniels civilly delight
In barking of the game they dare not bite.
Since this is a perfect description of politicians and police in
two lines, I tend not to write on the subject, since I can't top The
Pope.
>
> >poof! they're gone.
> >
> >right to privacy? it aids terrorism. poof! it's gone.
> >
> >certain books? it aids terrorism. poof! they're gone.
>
> BURN THOSE BOOKS, COMRADE AND CITIZEN!
Tsk. Kid, we're already /post/-/Fahrenheit 451/. What do you think
we are doing on these screens -- well away from watched libraries
and universities? Even A.G.Bell only extended the range of the
poet's /mouth/. Mosaic has extended his /pencil/. YAY!!!
Condemn no step you take that it's small.
Where you be you no takee step?
> >
> >i've noticed in history that once something stupid starts rolling, it's very
> >hard to stop.
UseNet, e.g.
But a weapon is stupid only if you don't /use/ it. (I still
practice rocks on occasion, but I don't know about stooping to
UseNet...)
> >
> >anyway, you are correct in your assessments, Ms. Sophie. we live in
> >NeoMcCarthyite times. as i've stated before, to many Brits, regardless of what
> >you feel about PM Tony Blair, you haven't got a CLUE how fucking lucky you are.
>
> oh, we do.
> we still hate the smarmy little git, but we do. we just (being british)
> don;t like to yank our american brethren's chain in public, unlike
> Martijn; who has an impeccably liberal constitution to hide behind.
> (that's in theory. practice doesn't always work that way).
>
> >love and kisses,
>
> don't you mean "most sincerely"?
> this is aapc. or is the aapc sig recessive?
Yes, but like other recessive genetic material, aapc keeps popping
up in the pool no matter how hard we try to drown it.
>
> --
>
> sophie
Dennis M. Hammes
They have, you have, and I did, but you keep insisting on sucking
the pricks of your Mommy's Servants and squabbling over who's to
hire them.
Dennis M. Hammes
Chucky Baby, you can't even support /your own/ bush. Too much to
ask you to get /your/ head out of anything, though...
Zinc
message news:3d18969c...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=6&cid=514&u=/ap/20020
> 625/ap_on_re_us/attacks_libraries_3
>
> Personally, I find this very chilling. What you read should be your
> business but, as Banned Books Week reminds us every year, the assault
> on your personal freedoms is ongoing. Instead of the House UnAmerican
> Activates Committee, we can have the House UnAmerican Literature
> Committee. Bet Lynne Cheney would love to head that one up.
>
> So, just what is the literate terrorist reading today? Or rather, what
> books do the Shrub, Ashcroft et al. THINK terrorists are reading?
> Cendare, who sent me this story, suggested "Mein Kampf" and the
> Anarchist's Cookbook. I'm also betting anything by Chomsky and the
> Koran might get you looked at twice.
Chilling as it is, somehow I doubt this is a new thing. Makes me wonder if the
convenience of Amazon is worth it.
Almost as chilling was the lovefest between Ridge and Leberman during the
Homeland Security Congressional meeting. Ridge mentioned a number of times -
almost asking for dissent - that a significant aspect of the department's powers
would be in "directing" the FBI and CIA in their investigations whenever they
saw fit. Of course we all want to pay for another covert 'security' department
don't we? Don't bother fixing the broken bureaucracies just add another behemoth
to the load.
Art McNutt
scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 6/25/02 8:36 PM:
[snip]
>>> as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
>>
>> in a word, yes. the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for a number US
>
> Well, aside from the fact that any "writ" is a Brit law, and /habeas
> corpus/ is specifically Brit, it doesn't bother me all that much.
> Any babies suck each other and agree to "abolish," I'll just fall
> back on /habeas gladius/, which the 2nd Amendment reminds these
> babies they /can't/ "suspend" or "abolish" -- i.e., /with what?/
> "Suspend" my Constitution? With a /servant/? Lissen, Kiddies,
> conspiracy to mutiny is a summary capital offense. And, I can
> suspend things, too. Sisal is 15 cents a foot at the True Value.
> And I don't /need/ my neighbors' "permission," since I already have
> the "suspender's" (heh). And whether he's sovereign or servant,
> /he/ seZ he's De Law.
> I hear and obey, O Effendi.
>
Hmmm. Of course, I wished /I/ would have said that.
A cow protests the prod; and too late
All the while walking the long walk
Relieved, the jolts stop, but at the gate
Hunh? She says, but it's too /late/ to squawk.
You start getting letters like FBI and ATF and INF to take care of John
Dillinger and David Koresh and Elian Gonzolez--weeellll what you expect,
Cochise? You expect you're still free?
Why is Dennis the only lonely voice out here on the world wide waves
reassuring that the Constitution is /his/? Efrim Zebelist, Jr. questioning
why you checked out "Das Kapital, The Penguin Classics edition of the Koran,
and How to Blow Up Your School" from Lincoln Land Library in 1988 isn't the
problem. The problem, soon to become painfully acute, is the fact that we
think it's somebody else's job to see to it America is "safe." They hit the
WTC /twice/ several years apart. You think the Gestapo would have stopped
what happened? They couldn't even stop 14 year old Audrey Hepburn from
transferring messages and transporting arms to the Resistance. Cops are
smart only compared to the criminals dim enough to let themselves get
arrested.
"Baaaaah baaaaahh." Translated to English this means "That Rod and that
Staff are buggin' me. Why doesn't the shepherd lead us to green pastures?"
Vote with your feet, Curly.
---
Art
goddess
"Chuck Lysaght" <sanma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a44b9687.02062...@posting.google.com...
Why am I not surprised?
I support the
> Patriot Act.
Figures.
We're at war, you stupid fuck. Get you head out of the
> clouds.
Yes, there is a war; a war to destroy the US Constitution.
Marg
B. Callaghan
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:kdehhuo5gflpnscd2...@4ax.com...
> Other books sure to get you classified as a terrorist:
>
> George Bush is Less Than a Genius
>
> SUV's Aren't Particularly Beneficial to the Atmosphere
>
> Dick Cheney's Generosity is Inferior to God's
>
> How the Republicans Less Than Won the Presidential Election
>
> Josh
loL. Good ones Josh!
Personally, I don't have a problem with giving the FBI access to what
suspected terrorists are using our public libraries for. The scumbags
used our Flight Schools to learn how to fly our planes into our buildings,
our Airline cutlery to fashion into weapons for slashing the crews' throats
and our box cutters to subdue remaining innocent passengers. They've
used our public libraries for cheap, fast and easy access to information
of a technical nature. Not a problem for me if the feds lawfully obtain
the search warrant. I in no way correlate these measures with the
resurgence of McCarthyism.
And if those terrorist bastards are late with the books, they had better
pay their fines just like everyone else.
- bettina
Joshua P. Hill
<sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
Echoes, probably, but there were elements to McCarthyism that haven't
arisen in the current crisis -- loyalty oaths (though that business at
the commencement speech wasn't all that far), guilt by association,
blacklists, and so forth. Wait a moment, I take that back about guilt
by association . . .
Anyway, I don't know exactly what will happen, but I think the world
will be hard pressed to preserve civil liberties in the years ahead.
Technology has changed things. As it becomes ever easier for a small
country, group, or individual to cause mass casualties, it is
increasingly impossible for society to tolerate even a small chance of
such behaviors. Zero tolerance becomes the only possible policy. And
what that means I think is that we -- nations, groups, individuals --
will probably have to get used to being watched and controlled. The
trick, I think -- and I hope we can pull this off -- is to do a good
job of triage, preserving necessary freedoms even as we curtail the
others.
This can, I think, be done. During the Civil War, for example, Lincoln
dealt with a situation that necessitated the suspension of basic
constitutional guarantees in the rebel states, something that the
framers of the constitution hadn't envisaged. But because the North
stayed loyal to the intentions of the framers -- the *principles*
behind the constitution -- the constitution didn't fall.
But at other times, lesser men have stripped freedoms for the wrong
reasons, and without necessity. Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, to name a
few. And the Bush administration, of course, was swept in to office on
the wings of a bat. So far, though, they've done a fairly good job of
making distinctions based on the characterization of the current
conflict as war rather than criminal activity, which has allowed them
to follow precedent and common law.
The question now is whether this commonsensical distinction will be
subverted too badly by those who abuse such things. That's made
problematic by the fact that the President has chosen to concentrate
certain powers in himself, thereby at least partially bypassing the
safeguards of an independent judiciary and the separation of powers.
The important thing, as always, is to abstract the right *principles*
and apply them to what's going on today; otherwise we'll face a choice
between losing the benefits of freedom on one hand, and of
civilization on the other. But such principled distinctions require
institutionalization if they are to outlive those who first made them.
This administration, with it's practical, short-term business
orientation, has demonstrated that it has a blind spot when it comes
to building such new institutions. And I think one should take lessons
from the McCarthy period in that light -- as an indication of what can
happen when institutional controls fail, when freedoms are stripped
without regard to principle. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't
happened -- yet. If we are to avoid on one hand the loss of beneficial
liberties and on the other the loss of life and civilization, we will
have to find it in ourselves to be Lincolns, rather than McCarthys.
Josh
Alan (Ursus Major)
chicken-little group.
Alan Walkington
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:mrvjhu4ephfag3nhl...@4ax.com...
j r sherman
>
>Thanks for a voice of common sense among the rants and raves of this
>chicken-little group.
>
>Alan Walkington
so alan, how long should the government restrict the due process of law for a US
citizen?
perhaps in the conservative creed it says: as long as they're towel heads and
sand niggers, as long as we want to!
either we all get the due process of law.
or we don't.
we don't do it "sometimes".
we do it for everyone.
i think that's the main thing us "chicken-littles" are trying to say.
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua P. Hill
As I tried to say in my other post, I'm more concerned by the
*potential* abuse of these new powers than I am by anything that's
happened so far. I agree that strong measures are necessary, and fear
that they will ultimately have to be far stronger than anything we've
seen to date. Unfortunately, such necessary measures are subject to
abuse, and our history is littered with such abuses -- the internment
of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthy's blacklist, J. Edgar
Hoover's attempts to damage the careers and reputations of
controversial figures like Martin Luther King, and so forth.
I grew up at a time when draft boards routinely drafted people to
silence them, when the government beat, gassed, and even shot people
who were exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate, when
the Nixon administration used the IRS to silence its political
opponents and plotted to use the CIA to control the FBI, so as much as
I'd like to believe the government will always behave responsibility
and put the country's true interest ahead of politics and ideology, I
can't ignore the real possibility for abuse. Our challenge is to do
what we must to prosecute the war, without sacrificing the principles
we're fighting for.
Josh
Alan (Ursus Major)
'christian' name, yes? hee...) I do not approve of citizens being denied
their rights.
Firstly, I am not a conservative. I believe that the relgious right still
presents the greatest long-term danger to our liberty. I have an independant
political philosophy, perhaps closer to libertarianism (an impossible
dream). I believe that the rights of the individual supercede the rights of
the group. Abrogating individual rights for the good of the group is wrong.
I'm not in favor of the government's approach to the current treatment of
U.S. citizens, no matter of /what/ they may be accused. Governments
historically panic under pressure, democrats and republicans alike. Each
war and warlet awakes fears that the politicians (and the citizens that
elected them) have a hard time facing. So you get overreactions.
We have survived them all before, from Lincoln's suspending habeus corpus to
the WWII incaration of Japanese Americans to HUAC and McCarthy to the FBI
infringements under Hoover in the 70's. We will survive this episode also.
The sky is /not/ falling. But we must be wary of cracks. Those of us with
common sense /will/ prevail. But we lose credibility with every hysterical
display we allow ourselves to make. Mr. Hill's statement is reasonable.
The hysterical nonsense I've been reading from most other posts is not
reasonable.
Of course, j r, (saying this politely and with a smile), /you/ don't need to
worry about losing credibility.
Alan Walkington
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:afdff...@drn.newsguy.com...
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
Joshua P. Hill:
>As I tried to say in my other post,
<tedious-off-topic-moronism-snip>
What did you "try to say"? Was it some rant about how clever and
well-informed you wrongly imagine you are? Was it some wankoff stuff
about how good you are at spelling compared with Martijn Benders? Was
it a homoerotic love-letter to the lying jean-phillippe troll?
Who cares any more ? Why should anybody read the tripe you're posting
these days?
You joined the regiment of boring morons months ago but I was gentle
with you just in case you proved to be the real Josh Hill of olden
days.
I suspect you may need medication. Friendly advice, there, just in
case you're the real Josh. But if you're the fake Josh you appear to
be you ought to suffocate yourself.
Bye. *plonk*
PJR :-)
Joshua P. Hill
Er, right.
Josh
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
Joshua P. Hill:
>Er, right.
>
>Josh
Oh how clever! The Hill-dweller troll knows how to vary his email
address to evade the kill-filter! What a clever little troll it is!
But what a damn shame it is that the once admirable Josh Hill has
proved at last to be such a waste of bandwidth.
*plonk* to this identity too. Any more?
PJR :-)
Diogenes Benders
>
> >Bye. *plonk*
> >
> >PJR :-)
>
> Er, right.
Yeah, right. This is a poetry forum. You're not even a poet. You keep
posting large quantities of pro-american chestbeating wartalks and nobody
cares about that sort of stuff here, thickhead.
M.H.Benders
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.kannibaal.nl/
De enige echt gezellige literaire website op het net
http://www.kannibaal.nl/nklpfaq.htm
De enige officiele FAQ voor de nieuwsgroep NKLP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >Bye. *plonk*
>> >
>> >PJR :-)
>>
>> Er, right.
>
>Yeah, right. This is a poetry forum. You're not even a poet. You keep
>posting large quantities of pro-american chestbeating wartalks and nobody
>cares about that sort of stuff here, thickhead.
90% of the time I disagree with you, Martijn, but about the poisonous
Hilltroll I think you're right.
I faintly remember Josh posting a light-verse poem about embryos to
somebody else's thread about a year ago. I think he's commented on two
or three poems written by other people since. Apart from that, he's
spent most of his time following you around in a Wolkindish fashion
and chatting with Michael Stephens about their shared delusions.
He's that rarest of creatures: a last-resort-patriot troll who can
spell (except a few fairly common words that he persistently gets
wrong. I'm not going to tell him which ones. Let him sweat.)
You, OTOH, are a bilingual poet who has an amazing talent for annoying
North Americans.
I know which of the two I prefer.
PJR :-)
Diogenes Benders
>
> 90% of the time I disagree with you, Martijn,
About what?
> You, OTOH, are a bilingual poet who has an amazing talent for annoying
> North Americans.
My initial analysis was simple: all the annoying trolls in this newsgroup are
from the USA. That's a plain fact. When I stated this simple fact, however,
dozens of Americans started to whine about 'prejudices' and 'generilisations'
and whatnot. My point was that, as a neighbourhood, we should take
responsibility and point out to 'street america' that a lot of garbage is
coming our way from their direction. Instead of taking responsibility,
however, the US brothers started to side up with the trolls in their 'war
against those who discredit the USA' - bunch of patriotic wankers, if you ask
me.
But there's good news too. One of the best dutch poets has put my name up as
being one of his favorite poets:
Nice huh?
Joshua P. Hill
No. I can't say I care one way or the other about your decision not to
read my posts, and as for your upset, well, I suppose I could ask why
you reserve to yourself the right to yap endlessly at Chuck and Cappy,
but get all in a tizzy when *I* respond to a Dutch Chuck who loses no
opportunity to insult my country and fellow group members, and who
started this thing up again after I had let it rest, in large measure
because of your request. But I won't. It suffices that you have a bee
in your bonnet, and I can only shrug my shoulders and move on, without
senseless displays of ire, or audible plonks.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >Bye. *plonk*
>> >
>> >PJR :-)
>>
>> Er, right.
>
>Yeah, right. This is a poetry forum. You're not even a poet. You keep
>posting large quantities of pro-american chestbeating wartalks and nobody
>cares about that sort of stuff here, thickhead.
Uh, right.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>> 90% of the time I disagree with you, Martijn,
>About what?
Probably about the same thing everybody else (except Sophie?)
disagrees with you about -- 90% of what you say. The other 10% is
excellent, but as Mike said some time back, you've lost so much
credibility it no longer matters.
>My initial analysis was simple: all the annoying trolls in this newsgroup are
>from the USA. That's a plain fact.
Gee, Martijn, I didn't know you'd moved.
> When I stated this simple fact, however,
>dozens of Americans started to whine about 'prejudices' and 'generilisations'
>and whatnot.
Self-deceptive wanker. Hey, win any more arguments today? You know,
like the ones about the Gypsies, or the vegetables, or (insert any of
Martijn's clown college exercises here).
> My point was that, as a neighbourhood, we should take
>responsibility and point out to 'street america' that a lot of garbage is
>coming our way from their direction.
Glad to see you've chosen to redress the flow, oh arrogant one.
> Instead of taking responsibility,
>however, the US brothers started to side up with the trolls in their 'war
>against those who discredit the USA' - bunch of patriotic wankers, if you ask
>me.
But then, he didn't ask you. Doubt anybody ever asks you much of
anything, except why you dye your hair orange.
>But there's good news too. One of the best dutch poets has put my name up as
>being one of his favorite poets:
And guess what? I'm not going to respond with the obvious retort,
because, unlike you, I'm not in the habit of insulting other people's
countries.
BTW, ever notice how upset you get on the rare occasions when others
adopt your tactics? It's amazing how hypocritical you are.
>http://www.heytze.nl/faq.htm
>
>Nice huh?
Oh, I'm all choked up about it. While you're at it, why don't you tell
us again about how great your poetry is and how everybody else's is
crap, or how great your web site is and how everybody else's is crap.
It's so charming: see the cute little tike, on his cute little trike.
Well, sorry, but I gotta run -- me and those Hispanic Gypsies are
working out the invasion of the Hague tonight. I promise we won't
bring along any garbage, not even your posts.
Josh
Dennis M. Hammes
But police (Constables On Patrol, they ain't) are /not/ smart
compared with the criminals. The criminals turn themselves in for
the room and board. A man who /sells women/ struts his feathers and
his moola in broad daylight in front of a dozen police who don't
make as much combined as he does from /selling people in the U.S./.
A man who bilked his own employees of millions, and paid /himself/
a $3.2-million "severance" before handing them the toilet paper and
the police the shreddings...
A blood-spattered "suspect" seZ, "but the glove doesn't fit."
"If people go down to the end of the town, What Can Anyone Do?"
Police are hired because they are /safe/ to have around Princess'
criminal mouth. And even /safer/ to have around Princess'
"metaphysical" assertion that Princess has Acquired The Power by
Putting On The Dress.
Thus, the whole wad of them in a bunch, with their priests and
Princesses into the bargain, cannot deal with a /single juvenile
with a cigarette/.
They can deal with a juvie with a 9mm?
Hear that echo...
>
> "Baaaaah baaaaahh." Translated to English this means "That Rod and that
> Staff are buggin' me. Why doesn't the shepherd lead us to green pastures?"
/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes/. Translated to English this means
"the sum of 'safe' is 'safer'."
Some actually hold it to mean, "The Clothes aren't wearing any
Emperor," but we all know /those/ "people" are /crazy/, and are
"terrorists" who can be "feasibly tortured under the Constitution."
Yup. A couple months ago it was Ted Koppel on /Nightline/.
Today, it is /The American Legion (Magazine)/, "For God and
Country" since 1919.
$2.50 July 2002. Page 12 et seq. By Alan Dershowitz. "When All
Else Fails, Why Not Torture?"
Well, I'll /tell/ you, Alan. Because you haven't even /tried/
anything else.
Because you're too /pricksucking yellow/ to wear your own sword in
your own hand.
Because the rest of us have to maintain your pricksucking
/equality/ for you by being disarmed by your /servants/ when we
board airplanes or walk our own yards.
So, Alan, I'll just remind you -- once -- that inciting to riot,
inciting to mutiny, and poisoning the student body are summary
capital offenses.
/Maleficos non patieris vivere/. Translated into English, this
means "Thou shalt not suffer a priest to live."
If you want it, you got it.
I prefer the 1st Amendment. Translated into English, it means
"You can call your priest anything you want to call your priest --
except my priest."
That way, I don't have to "suspend" him for inciting to riot, etc.
Because he is /not/ an "authority," the rioters /don't hafta
listen/. Their ruckus is /their own choice and fault, each/.
But you keep your priest outta my law, Alan.
You keep your little yellow Suck The Daddy religion outta my law,
Alan.
Or I will.
As long as he's just a priest, claiming how "nice" it would be to
own people, the 1st Amendment -- translated into English, this means
" ..|.. " (that's the "1" sticking up there in the middle, see it,
Alan?) -- says it is a sufficient defense to say "fuck you."
And as long as your servants preach that what /I/ say is
"meaningless," "has no authority," and "doesn't count," that's fine,
too, Alan. Because the sum of zeros is zero and we're all Equal and
all that shit. So what /you/ say is "meaningless," "has no
authority," and "doesn't count." And that goes even more so for
your /servants/, Alan. If we all mean nothing, then we all mean
nothing, and even your Mommy can't anoint her unders over.
But if your religion becomes the "Law," Alan, I shall /obey/ it.
If your religion /owns/ people enough to give them a stack of
Orderrss ZISS HIGHL, if your religion /owns/ people enough to
"torture them feasibly," if your religion owns their incomes, their
houses, their lives, their fortunes, their honors, then I shall most
feasibly /obey/ you, Alan. And your servants, Alan.
I shall own you for about five seconds of /target practice/.
Hey. /You/ said what /you/ wanted to own people for. You wasted
them, that's /your/ problem.
Now it's /my/ turn.
And it's /your law/.
I, FM16 Sir Dennis M. Hammes, do ordain, establish, maintain, and
defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.
/s/ dmh Xp17677997
>
> Vote with your feet, Curly.
Yes. What Bob voted with in most of his stories. Why I listened to
him "only up to a point." We don't get off this cooling ball any
time soon. So we take care of this cooling ball.
Knowwhutahmeeeen, Vern?
> ---
> Art
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
> news:kdehhuo5gflpnscd2...@4ax.com...
>
> > Other books sure to get you classified as a terrorist:
> >
> > George Bush is Less Than a Genius
Oh? He's /President of the U.S./, int he? And the PeePole voted
for...?
(N.B.: It doesn't matter /which/ one they "voted" for. Think
about it.)
> >
> > SUV's Aren't Particularly Beneficial to the Atmosphere
> >
> > Dick Cheney's Generosity is Inferior to God's
> >
> > How the Republicans Less Than Won the Presidential Election
> >
> > Josh
>
> loL. Good ones Josh!
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with giving the FBI access to what
> suspected terrorists are using our public libraries for. The scumbags
> used our Flight Schools to learn how to fly our planes into our buildings,
> our Airline cutlery to fashion into weapons for slashing the crews' throats
> and our box cutters to subdue remaining innocent passengers.
Q: Where were our short swords while all this was going on?
A: Your Mommy's Servants Said...
Well, I could /tell/ you what your Mommy's Servants Said, but then
I'd have to kill them...
> They've
> used our public libraries for cheap, fast and easy access to information
> of a technical nature. Not a problem for me if the feds lawfully obtain
> the search warrant. I in no way correlate these measures with the
> resurgence of McCarthyism.
>
> And if those terrorist bastards are late with the books, they had better
> pay their fines just like everyone else.
>
> - bettina
Dennis M. Hammes
What "powers"? You still haven't established how babies anoint
their unders over.
Hell, you haven't even established how their /Mommies/ anoint
their unders over.
Shit, Boy, you haven't even established how /you/ anoint your unders
over, and you otta be able to demonstrate that Right In Front Of
Us. /Show us/ this Most Pometic of Mystical Linguistic Techniques,
kid.
> than I am by anything that's
> happened so far. I agree that strong measures are necessary,
Why?
To get your friggin attention on the fact that your defense is
/your/ responsibility, kid?
Or to get your frigging attention on the fact that you don't even
/offer/ to maintain your Equality by sawing /me/ off?
> and fear
> that they will ultimately have to be far stronger than anything we've
> seen to date. Unfortunately, such necessary measures are subject to
> abuse, and our history is littered with such abuses -- the internment
> of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthy's blacklist, J. Edgar
> Hoover's attempts to damage the careers and reputations of
> controversial figures like Martin Luther King, and so forth.
>
> I grew up at a time when draft boards routinely drafted people to
> silence them, when the government beat, gassed, and even shot people
> who were exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate,
5 May 1970? Kid, the police and National Guard murdered one boy who
was 50 feet from a brick. They murdered two boys who were /watching
people/ "exercising the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
And they murdered one juvenile female who was exercising her /paid/
right to walk from one class to another 200 yards from the ruckus.
To count these four bodies, they fired 97 rounds of ammo at a
distance of less than 30 feet from their putative targets.
I fail to see that as any sort of "power," even though a Servant
dressed in a Barbie-Doll Dress patted his little boyfriends in
/their/ Barbie-Doll Dresses on the head the next day.
Indeed, I see your assertions that these people /have/ any sort of
"power" real or legal as an act of terrorism as defined by your own
Servants, since the demonstrated real fact and the demonstrated
legal fact is that you're lying out your ass about the "power" they
can "abuse" to get us or even make our lives miserable.
/Maleficos non patieris vivere/. "Thou shalt not suffer a maker
of evil fictions to live."
Now, Kid, if /my/ opinion "don't mean shit," that can be
conjugated as a regular verb, as in all those "votes" "don't mean
shit." And if I ain't got no power to object, then They Ain't Got
No Power In The First Place can be conjugated as a regular verb,
too.
This lesson in epic, historical, mathematical, and allusive poetry
has been brought to you by the letter Pee.
> when
> the Nixon administration used the IRS to silence its political
> opponents and plotted to use the CIA to control the FBI, so as much as
> I'd like to believe the government will always behave responsibility
> and put the country's true interest ahead of politics and ideology, I
> can't ignore the real possibility for abuse. Our challenge is to do
> what we must to prosecute the war, without sacrificing the principles
> we're fighting for.
>
> Josh
Dennis M. Hammes
You don't care about freedom? Or you don't care about your right to
it?
And we are to maintain your precious Equality for you by sucking
the pricks you suck because they tell you you're free.
Right.
"Kannibaal" = "pricksucker." But /we/ already knew that.
j r sherman
>
>No, j r (we've known each other long enough for me to presume your
>'christian' name, yes? hee...) I do not approve of citizens being denied
>their rights.
cool. then please condemn with me the actions of the un-elected administration
in locking up US citizens without the due process of law.
i'm appalled if they do it once. for fascists locking up people without the due
process of law is like eating peanuts, ya can't eat just one.
>Firstly, I am not a conservative. I believe that the religious right still
>presents the greatest long-term danger to our liberty.
them and the entire Republican party.
but just to show you i'm not partisan, i think the Green party, though a joke,
is just as dangerous to the welfare of this nation as the religious right.
>I have an independant
>political philosophy, perhaps closer to libertarianism (an impossible
>dream).
that's why i dislike libertarianism. but we can argue that case another time.
>I believe that the rights of the individual supercede the rights of
>the group. Abrogating individual rights for the good of the group is wrong.
cool! i pretty much agree with you.
but i will also agree with those who think there can be exceptions to certain
rules, especially in crucial situations. this is not one of those situations.
this is not WWII, nor is it the American Civil War. anyone who thinks that these
times are comparable is A) fooling themselves, B) ignorant of history, C)
probably a member of the un-elected Administration who knows, deep down, that
their administration is, at best, a sham, at worst, an immoral usurp ring of the
will of the American people.
>I'm not in favor of the government's approach to the current treatment of
>U.S. citizens, no matter of /what/ they may be accused. Governments
>historically panic under pressure,
or use a crisis, or even create a crisis, to cover up for their immoral,
un-elected, sham administration.
>democrats and republicans alike. Each
>war and warlet awakes fears that the politicians (and the citizens that
>elected them) have a hard time facing. So you get overreactions.
especially the idiotic clowns running the show now.
>We have survived them all before, from Lincoln's suspending habeus corpus to
>the WWII incaration of Japanese Americans to HUAC and McCarthy to the FBI
>infringements under Hoover in the 70's. We will survive this episode also.
perhaps. but you don't think people who speak out about the current abuses?
>The sky is /not/ falling. But we must be wary of cracks. Those of us with
>common sense /will/ prevail. But we lose credibility with every hysterical
>display we allow ourselves to make. Mr. Hill's statement is reasonable.
i've never said it wasn't.
>The hysterical nonsense I've been reading from most other posts is not
>reasonable.
i don't think expressing one's fears of the abuses of an un-elected
administration that's using this "crisis" as way to further their own personal
power constitutes hysteria.
>Of course, j r, (saying this politely and with a smile), /you/ don't need to
>worry about losing credibility.
what makes you think that i believe anything in this forum is all that fucking
important? the real fight for our civil rights will be done by ordinary people
doing what Americans do at such times, expressing themselves, speaking out,
following the law and voting.
that's not hysteria, alan, that's what Americans do at times like these.
j r sherman
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments removed the following benign growth from
<moron-snip>
Are you Michael Stephens? You're behaving just like him.
Future *plonk*s won't be announced. You'll just come to the eventual
sad realisation that your mindless rants are being ignored.
PJR :-)
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:09:44 +0100, sophie
> <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >as a pig-ignorant brit, am I right in seeing echoes of McCarthy here?
>
> Echoes, probably, but there were elements to McCarthyism that haven't
> arisen in the current crisis -- loyalty oaths
Nine years ago, some juvenile cunt at an "employment agency"
required me to sign a Loyalty Oath to take a job as a master
lithographer. I showed her my Legion Card. She insisted on the
Loyalty Oath, and offered to call her "police" if I didn't "watch
out." I told her where to put the oath and the job (she wasn't
worth the paperwork).
The MN "Legislature" recently passed a "law" requiring /my/ kid to
"pledge alliegience" in /my/ school, to somebody else's rag,
somebody else's "republic" (the Republic of Whichistan), and
somebody else's "God."
I would have considered this a sufficient reason to stuff the
magazine in the rifle, but I'd already done that about a minute
after I heard of "9/11."
> (though that business at
> the commencement speech wasn't all that far), guilt by association,
> blacklists, and so forth. Wait a moment, I take that back about guilt
> by association . . .
>
> Anyway, I don't know exactly what will happen, but I think the world
> will be hard pressed to preserve civil liberties in the years ahead.
The world doesn't preserve "civil liberties." You do.
Or you don't.
It's a free world (so far); take your pick.
Hint: Ever notice that /I/ live in a free world -- and /you/
don't? You keep gibbering about all the pricks you hafta suck and
how they'll hit you if you don't.
And every time the babies say "civilisation" is going down the
toilet because /they're/ going down the toilet (/who/ threw the baby
out with the /what/?), we get all these faggots crawling out of
their Mommies' rugs, gibbering about how they're gonna sic who they
suck on them as don't Keep Them Equal by sucking to their
satisfaction.
Not to mention their unique insistence that pricksucking and
talking about pricksucking constitutes High Art.
Well, I can talk about pricksucking too, Kid; /everybody's/ got
one. See, Kid, Amos 'N' Andy already did your "routine" about the
"fucker and the fuckee" to death in the '30s (shit, Boy,
Aristophanes did it to death 2400 years ago!), 'cos only /half/ got
them. So that any time you whine about "the fucker and the fuckee,"
you're whining /that you ain't got one/, and that is all. Whereas
pricksucking simply isn't a "weapon" because it can be conjugated as
a regular verb, i.e., /everybody's/ got one.
Funny yet?
High art yet?
Of cuss not. For something to be an art, the artiss hasta have
some color crayons nobody else has. And your cunt just doesn't fall
into that category.
[N.B.: "cunt" n. "that thing under your nose." Look it up. Like
the "other one," it was born to suck -- and that's still all it does
for an overgrown baby who needed to suck a little boy in a Barbie
Doll Dress for a Huggier Opinion of Which Words Were Written."]
Like my pome yet?
I didn't think so. But nobody's paying for the others, either, so
/I/ have no particular choice between them. I mean, if it "don't
mean nuthin'," then it don't, like, well, you know, /mean/ nuthin'.
> Technology has changed things. As it becomes ever easier for a small
> country, group, or individual to cause mass casualties, it is
> increasingly impossible for society to tolerate even a small chance of
> such behaviors. Zero tolerance becomes the only possible policy.
That's /amazing/. That's /exactly/ what they said to /every
passenger who boarded those planes on 11 September 2001/.
"September Morn," indeed.
And it's a most wonderful, probably even Holy, Theory Of Public
Safety, too. I can't think /how/ many times I've heard it dribbling
past some little boy's cum stains.
I just don't "believe" I want anybody as illiterate and yellow as
you are choosing who and which is to be "tolerated."
And therefore you're not going to. Nor are your servants.
Knowwhutahmeeeeeeeen, Vern?
Knowwhutelseahmeen, Vern? Ah means that /you/ are not gonna pick
who /keeps/ the guns they shove in my face. Get it, Boy?
I didn't think you would.
You got a Holy Power.
You can /alter the nature of the universe/ by /choosing/ whose
prick you're gonna suck.
Like my pome yet?
Yah, yah, I know.
A Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim all suck God's prick. And brag about
it.
God sucks /your/ prick.
And brags about it.
> And
> what that means I think is that we -- nations, groups, individuals --
> will probably have to get used to being watched and controlled.
But if we're so pricksucking Equal that /I/ don't mean nuthin', how
do you derive a fucker and a fuckee? They's /diff'nt/, Boy. See,
Boy, to "control," you's gots ta has a /fucker/ and you's gots to
has a /fuckee/. But all /you's/ gots is a bunch of /Equal Cunts/,
those things under your noses.
See, Boy, you may have /invented/ "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need/. But we're better at it.
I'm even better at pricksucking than you are, Boy.
So my "ability" must therefore suck your "need" to have somebody
pretend for you that you've got one. (We /all/ know how that works,
Boy, we've /all/ got one.)
And because you "don't got" and I "got," why nobody can ever order
you to give down, neener, neener, you ain't got no "ability" stuff
to loot, just a well-developed and highly-practiced "need."
Boy, you /always/ have the ability to be a target. And I /need/
target practice.
Don't go there.
You won't come back.
And if this /isn't/ your Theory (though you admit that it is),
then you learn how to tell what I told ya. It's what I write pomes
for, see?
> The
> trick, I think -- and I hope we can pull this off -- is to do a good
> job of triage, preserving necessary freedoms even as we curtail the
> others.
This is an /exact/ quote, given translator's variants, of Joseph
Goebbels in 1932 (not to mention Plato around 350 BC).
So you have, unfortunately, proved, Right In Front Of Us, either
1. that you /can/ learn a pome, or, if you "invented" it,
2. that you are the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.
But you claim to have still some freedom to choose your beliefs.
Therefore, you /chose/ to learn or invent /this/ pome, you
cannibal-wannabe rug-maggot.
>
> This can, I think, be done. During the Civil War, for example, Lincoln
> dealt with a situation that necessitated the suspension of basic
> constitutional guarantees in the rebel states,
Pricksucking is one thing, bearing false witness is another. /The
Southern States/ abolished their "constitutional guarantees" along
with their Constitution. Lincoln abolished nothing. Lincoln caused
the drafting of the XIII and XIV Amendments.
Which I ordain, establish, maintain, and defend in /real time/.
Because Lincoln also /maintains/ nothing; "Mr. Lincoln, he dead."
(Still is, in case you hadn't heard.)
Now, any time you want /your servants/ to abolish /their
Constitution/, I will merely point out that they have abolished the
only thing that creates and maintains their offices. And in short,
if they "suspend" or "abolish" the Constitution, the joke is that
/I/ still have a Constitution right here in my right hand -- and
/they/ "don't mean nuthin'" no mo'; /they Said/.
But the trouble is that little boys with cunts under their noses
are /too yellow/ to ordain, establish, maintain, and defend /their/
Constitutions, so they gots to keep /sucking/ pricks Barbie Doll
Dresses for Huggier Opinions about how they own /my/ Constitution.
But not because they /wants/ it, oh, no sirree. They gots to keep
gibbering about how /their/ pricksucking has "abolished" /my/
rights.
Not good poetry a tall, a tall. Not even an act of language.
And it don't even rhyme unless I makes it rhyme. Tsk.
> something that the
> framers of the constitution hadn't envisaged.
I am telling you exactly what I, a framer of the Constitution,
envisaged. John Hancock, he dead. Thomas Jefferson, he dead. You
have /absolutely no pricksucking idea/ what "the framers of the
Constitution Meant," Little Boy. You're just another pricksucking
priest tgrying to tell us that "because" "nobody can know" what "God
means," THEREFORE /you/ "know" what "God means."
I blow things on occasion, myself. I blew /that/ bit of
pricksucking out of the discourse when I was in the fourth grade.
Obviously, you were too /yellow/ to do so.
And now, that Dragon is the same size relative to you today that
it was to you when you were in the fourth grade. And that's, like,
Toedully Ossum, Dude.
> But because the North
> stayed loyal to the intentions of the framers -- the *principles*
> behind the constitution -- the constitution didn't fall.
"The North" did jack shit. /My/ fellows ordained, established,
maintained, and defended the United States and its Constitution, /in
real time/ (theirs, at the moment), from all enemies foreign /and
domestic/. Like, Dude, from a bunch of pricksucking, inbred
crackers who ran around /claiming to own people/.
In fact, faggot boy, the South /did not claim to own people/. As
late as "Dred Scott," and according to the Supreme Servant Court Of
The United States /to which the "South" still "belonged,"/ the negro
was not a "person" under the law, but an /already-owned property/
for which some "person" had a /registered sales receipt/.
/You/ are the little faggot boy who's running around here claiming
that your Mommy's servants can own /people/.
Goebbel, Goebbel, Goebbel.
But /you/ will not "agree" that /those/ people can't own people,
because /you're/ too pricksucking YELLOW to step outside without
/owning people for your own pricksucking safety/.
Goebbel, Goebbel, Goebbel.
And nobody has your /permission/, Princess, to defend himself from
your Mommy's servants because you don't /agree/ that he has
"permission."
One grants or withholds Permission /only among those he already
owns/.
Goebbel, Goebbel, Goebbel.
If owning people is the /law/, little boy, I hear and obey.
I shall own you for a little target practice.
Then I won't have your pricksucking Goebbeling around my
community, Demanding to be Recognised as Equal Poetry.
>
> But at other times, lesser men have stripped freedoms for the wrong
> reasons, and without necessity. Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, to name a
> few. And the Bush administration, of course, was swept in to office on
> the wings of a bat. So far, though, they've done a fairly good job of
> making distinctions based on the characterization of the current
> conflict as war rather than criminal activity, which has allowed them
> to follow precedent and common law.
Precedent = habit.
Common Law = "we all own each other."
Little Boy, your Mommy's servants' /habits/ are /not/ binding on
me.
As to our owning each other because you can say "commonwealth,"
see above. You didn't get as far as saying "common law."
Try, "won't you be my neighbor?"
You're just not getting very far with your poetic refrain, "won't
you be my property."
>
> The question now is whether this commonsensical distinction will be
> subverted too badly by those who abuse such things. That's made
> problematic by the fact that the President has chosen to concentrate
> certain powers in himself,
We're at war, child. And those powers are already to the President
by the Constitution.
I saw you palm that card.
The PreZ has the power to deal with terrorism /summarily/ because
/I/ have the power to deal with terrorism summarily.
You're just trying to get us to say that Certain Words constitute
"terrorism" while your offer to own us, and your threatening us with
the Mystical Moralties of your Imaginary Playmates, does not
constitute "terrorism."
Well, you're right. Your assertion that your Holy Powers can Add
Zeros in a Mystical Manner to produce a Divine Sum Binding On Your
Betters And Embodied In Your Mommy's Servants (the British Common
Law) --
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TERRORISM.
It constitutes a small "ROTFLMAO."
Once. Months ago.
Today, it constitutes inciting to riot, inciting to mutiny,
poisoning the student body, and wasting the life of a grandmaster.
Summary capital offenses, yes.
But "terrorism"? No, not terrorism.
It's too fucking /funny/ to be a Scary Movie, Kid.
It's just that, so far, none of it, nor all of it put together in
a bunch, constitutes a sufficient reason for a good weapons cleaning
and the time it takes to fill out the paperwork.
I mean, Kid, you ain't worth it all put together in a bunch.
But I am.
> thereby at least partially bypassing the
> safeguards of an independent judiciary and the separation of powers.
> The important thing, as always, is to abstract the right *principles*
> and apply them to what's going on today; otherwise we'll face a choice
> between losing the benefits of freedom on one hand, and of
> civilization on the other.
Whee!!! (Or is that "wee"?)
It's the old "Freedom Versus Civilisation" Trick, 99!
Plato founded a 1.5" thick stack of Goebbeling on this "premise."
Goebbels Goebbeled the same one in 1934.
And what's this "we," Paleface? You got tapeworms?
Or is Princess speaking in His Royal Person?
See, Babykins, /you/ can't discuss "freedom vs. civilisation,"
because you have neither.
Whereas I don't find your pricksucking little "premise" anywhere
in the discourse, because I have /both/. And Babysucks -- they
ain't "versus."
They're codependent.
> But such principled distinctions require
> institutionalization if they are to outlive those who first made them.
Oooo. The Literate Poet never heard of a /book/. Or of the Library
of Congress, who maintain the /original Constitution/ under
nitrogen, if that suits your fanny.
> This administration, with it's practical, short-term business
> orientation, has demonstrated that it has a blind spot when it comes
> to building such new institutions.
What? The Office of National Home Security (= /Geheim Staats
Polezei/; I saw you palm that card too, Clumsy).
That's gonna keep you and your religious pricksucking SAFE from
that nasty Middle East religious pricksucking?
Gee -- I think I heard that Trick somewhere before, 99.
> And I think one should take lessons
> from the McCarthy period in that light -- as an indication of what can
> happen when institutional controls fail, when freedoms are stripped
> without regard to principle.
You mean the way you've been blithely Goebbeling on and on and on,
because, of cuss, you already own everybody you think you've heard
of because you think you've heard of them, SO THAT the ONLY THING
that REMAINS TO BE DISCUSSED is how YOUR premises and YOUR friends
are going to DISPOSE THEM.
> But as far as I can tell, that hasn't
> happened -- yet. If we are to avoid on one hand the loss of beneficial
> liberties and on the other the loss of life and civilization, we will
> have to find it in ourselves to be Lincolns, rather than McCarthys.
"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot
consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living
and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long
remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did
here."
Gee. PowerPrincess forgot /both/. /Ossum/ power.
>
> Josh
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Thanks for a voice of common sense among the rants and raves of this
> chicken-little group.
>
> Alan Walkington
Goebbel, Goebbel, Suck, Suck.
No wonder your poultry has no ballZ.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> In article <MNqS8.612729$og1....@news.easynews.com>, "Alan says...
> >
> >Thanks for a voice of common sense among the rants and raves of this
> >chicken-little group.
> >
> >Alan Walkington
>
> so alan, how long should the government restrict the due process of law for a US
> citizen?
>
> perhaps in the conservative creed it says: as long as they're towel heads and
> sand niggers, as long as we want to!
>
> either we all get the due process of law.
>
> or we don't.
>
> we don't do it "sometimes".
>
> we do it for everyone.
>
> i think that's the main thing us "chicken-littles" are trying to say.
>
> j r sherman
Forget it, j r; the little boy understands the mysterious powers
encoded in sucking noises. And with powers like those, "What Can
Anyone Do"?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> No, j r (we've known each other long enough for me to presume your
> 'christian' name, yes? hee...) I do not approve of citizens being denied
> their rights.
So long as you don't have /your/ paw on a weapon that works, you
approve of /everything/, because you can't do diddly about /any/ of
it.
>
> Firstly, I am not a conservative. I believe that the relgious right still
> presents the greatest long-term danger to our liberty. I have an independant
> political philosophy, perhaps closer to libertarianism (an impossible
> dream). I believe that the rights of the individual supercede the rights of
> the group. Abrogating individual rights for the good of the group is wrong.
No wonder you can't write pometry. What is this Goebbel, Goebbel
you parrot from somebody else's pome (like we didn't know whose)?
What "rights of the group," Little Plagiarist Boy? What "good of
the group," Chuckles II?
There is no such thing as a "group," Little Boy.
Your own Plato proved that -- so that he could Goebbel, Goebbel,
Goebbel about "the republic." Which looks one /hell/ of a lot like
a "group" to me, Boy.
Look it up.
As it sits, your pome only Goebbels about the Holy Powers you
overhear in other people's noises.
Alan (Ursus Major)
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3D1AA82E...@arvig.net...
> "Alan (Ursus Major)" wrote:
>
> So long as you don't have /your/ paw on a weapon that works, you
> approve of /everything/, because you can't do diddly about /any/ of
> it.
You speak well about those things you know. You don't /know/ that I indeed
have a Rugers 357, and I keep it oiled, loaded, and at hand. Fortunately I
have never /needed/ to use it for other than target practice.I /have/ used
my shotgun and rifle to put meat in the locker (though picking birdshot out
of duck, grouse and dove annoys me).
> >
> > Firstly, I am not a conservative. I believe that the relgious right
still
> > presents the greatest long-term danger to our liberty. I have an
independant
> > political philosophy, perhaps closer to libertarianism (an impossible
> > dream). I believe that the rights of the individual supercede the rights
of
> > the group. Abrogating individual rights for the good of the group is
wrong.
>
> No wonder you can't write pometry.
Don't know what /that/ has to do with this particular thread.
>What is this Goebbel, Goebbel
> you parrot from somebody else's pome (like we didn't know whose)?
> What "rights of the group," Little Plagiarist Boy? What "good of
> the group," Chuckles II?
A 'group's' rights are exactly, and only, what an individual is willing to
cede to it. And notice I said 'cede', because if you allow a group the
right to make a choice /for/ you, then you have lost that right for yourself
until you take it back.
You are resorting to name-calling? You are smarter than that, Dennis.
There is no need for personal insults. What frightens you so on this ng
that you have degraded yourself to this extent? I have a lot of respect for
the persona you have allowed us to see here. Are you determined to become a
counter-chuckie of your own? Why?
> There is no such thing as a "group," Little Boy.
Even if you are a hermit, Dennis, there is always a group. Like concentric
rings from a pebble dropped in a pool, the group starts with you in the
center and includes with increasingly lesser importance, your familiy,
extended family, clan and on outwards. Some people seem to have the need to
invent other types of /groups/ such as political parties. There are 280+
million people living in this country. Other peoples groups /will/ impinge
on you. Should you will it or not, you /cannot/ prevent it. Unless you find
another planet, you are stuck here.
It's up to you whether 'social intercourse' means getting buttfucked by
these groups. You can shoot everyone who offends you only until you run out
of bullets. Then the /groups/ will use your own rope to hang you. Your
epitapht can read: "He died well, free, and foolish".
> Your own Plato proved that -- so that he could Goebbel, Goebbel,
> Goebbel about "the republic." Which looks one /hell/ of a lot like
> a "group" to me, Boy.
> Look it up.
/My/ Plato? I've read the republic. I would not choose to live there.
> As it sits, your pome only Goebbels about the Holy Powers you
> overhear in other people's noises.
Actually I am an atheist, so I wouldn't know much about Holy Powers.
Dennis, I speak for myself, in my own voice, concerning things about which I
have spent many years thinking. Do you believe that all who may disagree
with you are 'Goebblers'?
We can protect ourselves and our families from home invasion with a gun. We
cannot change the political makeup of this country with a gun. There are
too many wearing the 'noncombatant' arm bands. And most of those who
/don't/ wear them are not the sort of folks you want for neighbors; they
only wish to impose their /own/ groups mandates. I know; I /live/ along the
Idaho/Wyoming/Montana border. There are lots of them here.
We /have/ to deal with the groups. Live free or die? Don't tread on me?
Give me liberty or give me death? These statements were all posturing /for/
a group whom the speakers were trying to impress, as the political yammering
on this /ng/ is meant to impress the fellow yammerers. "No, no /I'm/ more
radical/revolutionary/socialist/fascist/what-ever-the-fuck than you. See?"
Goebbelers indeed. Discourse, Dennis, is our stage, and logic is our voice.
We don't /need/ to rant like fools.
You may /believe/ that I have spoken wrongly; but by Heinlein, I refuse to
rant and rave like a lunatic (however harsh a mistress she may be).
Alan Walkington
goddess
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
So, you didn't notice how we got out last President foisted upon us? You
don't consider that to be something to be concerned about?
I agree that strong measures are necessary, and fear
> that they will ultimately have to be far stronger than anything we've
> seen to date.
I respectfully disagree.
Unfortunately, such necessary measures are subject to
> abuse, and our history is littered with such abuses -- the internment
> of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthy's blacklist, J. Edgar
> Hoover's attempts to damage the careers and reputations of
> controversial figures like Martin Luther King, and so forth.
>
> I grew up at a time when draft boards routinely drafted people to
> silence them, when the government beat, gassed, and even shot people
> who were exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate, when
> the Nixon administration used the IRS to silence its political
> opponents and plotted to use the CIA to control the FBI, so as much as
> I'd like to believe the government will always behave responsibility
> and put the country's true interest ahead of politics and ideology, I
> can't ignore the real possibility for abuse. Our challenge is to do
> what we must to prosecute the war, without sacrificing the principles
> we're fighting for.
If we're not very careful, we'll wind up with a country that we don't even
recognize and maybe even worse than those we're fighting against now.
Marg
> Josh
Diogenes Benders
>
> >About what?
>
> Probably about the same thing everybody else (except Sophie?)
> disagrees with you about -- 90% of what you say. The other 10% is
> excellent, but as Mike said some time back, you've lost so much
> credibility it no longer matters.
Only the petty bourgeouis worry about 'credibility' - the idea that a poet should
behave in a certain way here to 'not lose his credibility' is so ridiculous and
small minded it has P.Hill written all over it.
> > Instead of taking responsibility,
> >however, the US brothers started to side up with the trolls in their 'war
> >against those who discredit the USA' - bunch of patriotic wankers, if you ask
> >me.
>
> But then, he didn't ask you. Doubt anybody ever asks you much of
> anything, except why you dye your hair orange.
This cheap attempt to display me as an 'isolated fellow' is just a transparant
debating trick as it bears no resemblance with reality.
> >But there's good news too. One of the best dutch poets has put my name up as
> >being one of his favorite poets:
>
> And guess what? I'm not going to respond with the obvious retort,
> because, unlike you, I'm not in the habit of insulting other people's
> countries.
Oh right, we're going to insult poets again whose work we have never read.
That will really make you look good in a poetry forum, asshole.
M.H.Benders
Diogenes Benders
garbage to where it belongs
"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
Dennis M. Hammes
Your own report of your personal preparations and skills, and 1775,
1861, and 1970, demonstrate that your statement here is Goebbling
other people's noises for the Imaginary (i.e., Holy) Comfort. Why?
Were you not demonstrably /on this ng/ better than that, I'd not
have bothered slapping you around in the first place. Some, as the
bible says, I merely wipe from my feet. Others never get on them in
the first place.
> There are
> too many wearing the 'noncombatant' arm bands.
Precisely. All happily Believing that /they/ will pick up the
pieces and Condemn the winners for the Blasphemy (sic) of having
won.
> And most of those who
> /don't/ wear them are not the sort of folks you want for neighbors; they
> only wish to impose their /own/ groups mandates. I know; I /live/ along the
> Idaho/Wyoming/Montana border. There are lots of them here.
>
> We /have/ to deal with the groups. Live free or die? Don't tread on me?
> Give me liberty or give me death? These statements were all posturing /for/
> a group whom the speakers were trying to impress, as the political yammering
> on this /ng/ is meant to impress the fellow yammerers. "No, no /I'm/ more
> radical/revolutionary/socialist/fascist/what-ever-the-fuck than you. See?"
I'm glad you retain enough sanity to manage to see it as posturing.
Including my own. Maybe you can figure out why I assume a posture I
don't ordinarily, despite that it is expensive and sweaty to
practice and time-consuming even to write about.
And I don't particularly enjoy it.
However, you may note that I enjoy the postulated alternative even
less.
I write pomes (including Ginsberg-style bellering prose ones)
partly /because/ I don't particularly f.cking care to charge the
f.king cannons with a f.king sword, nor /will/ I do so if I hafta do
it all by myself (nuthin' to save /there/, Kid).
Kindly understand that these shitheads have /never/ got to me;
three words and they fade. But they have got to every one of my
friends and family, because having arms is merely expensive if one
cannot identify the target or doesn't know why it should be
considered a target. De head bone's not Schenectady de finger bone.
>
> Goebbelers indeed. Discourse, Dennis, is our stage, and logic is our voice.
> We don't /need/ to rant like fools.
Hey. It got your attention.
>
> You may /believe/ that I have spoken wrongly; but by Heinlein, I refuse to
> rant and rave like a lunatic (however harsh a mistress she may be).
Heh. And you /never/ noted Lazarus or the Prof ranting like an
idiot to demonstrate a point.
>
> Alan Walkington
Bruce Tindall
>Well, aside from the fact that any "writ" is a Brit law,
No. See U.S. Code, Chapter 28, Section 1651, also known as the
"All Writs Act": "The Supreme Court and all other courts
established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary
and appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions...."
>and /habeas
>corpus/ is specifically Brit,
No. It's referred to in the U.S. Constitution: "The Privilege
of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
(Article I, Section 9).
They are *originally* British, but have not been specifically or
exclusively British for a long time.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Joshua P. Hill
<p...@britishlibrary.net> wrote:
>Future *plonk*s won't be announced. You'll just come to the eventual
>sad realisation that your mindless rants are being ignored.
Good, you're learning.
As I said, I really don't care whether you read my posts or not. And
ordinarily, it would be rude to defeat someone's kill filters. But by
the same token, it's fairly rude to insult someone and leave them no
room to respond; hence my little munge.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >About what?
>>
>> Probably about the same thing everybody else (except Sophie?)
>> disagrees with you about -- 90% of what you say. The other 10% is
>> excellent, but as Mike said some time back, you've lost so much
>> credibility it no longer matters.
>
>Only the petty bourgeouis worry about 'credibility' - the idea that a poet should
>behave in a certain way here to 'not lose his credibility' is so ridiculous and
>small minded it has P.Hill written all over it.
You and your lilly pad classifications! You're always inventing or
seeking to enforce rules and categories for people, did you know that?
He's an American/an intellectual/not a poet/a member of the petite
bourgeoisie. She quotes text wrong. It's not in the canon because a
commission said it wasn't. That useage can't be right because it's not
in the dictionary. I'll call the sheriff to make sure Chuck doesn't
improperly exercise freedom of speech.
Martijn, you understand about the frogs and the lilly pads -- I know
you do, because you were the one who *wrote* about the frogs and the
lilly pads. What you don't seem able to grasp is that, for better or
worse, much of the rest of the world isn't the same way, least of all
this place.
You really should get out and travel more.
As for credibility, you're right, insofar as poetry is concerned.
You'll note that I've never judged your poetry by your credibility,
and, in fact, have praised it even when I was arguing with you. (Or
maybe you won't, or you wouldn't have confused the issue in the first
place!)
Suffice it to say that poetry is not the only thing you post here. You
make numerous assertions about poetry and other matters, and it is
those assertions that have lost their credibility. And the fact that
you write poetry has nothing to do with that: an erroneous assumption
is an erroneous assumption, whether made by a poet, or a frog.
>> > Instead of taking responsibility,
>> >however, the US brothers started to side up with the trolls in their 'war
>> >against those who discredit the USA' - bunch of patriotic wankers, if you ask
>> >me.
>>
>> But then, he didn't ask you. Doubt anybody ever asks you much of
>> anything, except why you dye your hair orange.
>
>This cheap attempt to display me as an 'isolated fellow' is just a transparant
>debating trick as it bears no resemblance with reality.
Well, yeah -- but what, pray tell, was the passage I responded to --
"the US brothers started to side up with the trolls in their 'war
against those who discredit the USA' - bunch of patriotic wankers, if
you ask me"? A well-considered, fair, and rationally-expressed
discourse?
>> >But there's good news too. One of the best dutch poets has put my name up as
>> >being one of his favorite poets:
>>
>> And guess what? I'm not going to respond with the obvious retort,
>> because, unlike you, I'm not in the habit of insulting other people's
>> countries.
>
>Oh right, we're going to insult poets again whose work we have never read.
>That will really make you look good in a poetry forum, asshole.
Martijn to earth . . .
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
>news:4hgkhuson98h9bhfj...@4ax.com...
>> As I tried to say in my other post, I'm more concerned by the
>> *potential* abuse of these new powers than I am by anything that's
>> happened so far.
>
>So, you didn't notice how we got out last President foisted upon us? You
>don't consider that to be something to be concerned about?
On the contrary, I am concerned, which is why I specifically mentioned
it in my earlier post:
"But at other times, lesser men have stripped freedoms for the wrong
reasons, and without necessity. Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, to name a
few. And the Bush administration, of course, was swept into office on
the wings of a bat."
But I think that people can be imperfect and still do the right thing
when the issues are important enough. Or do the wrong thing, but not
to the point where it destroys us. I don't think things would work at
all if that weren't true.
>I agree that strong measures are necessary, and fear
>> that they will ultimately have to be far stronger than anything we've
>> seen to date.
>
>I respectfully disagree.
Depends, I think, entirely on what the terrorists do. If they start
slaughtering people by the hundreds of thousands or millions or
otherwise damage the country beyond our capacity or willingness to
sustain such damage, things will I think get very Draconian. And,
since I see no evidence that we're about to wipe out Al Qaeda, and
every evidence that they're looking at the use of weapons of mass
destruction, I fear that will be the case.
>Unfortunately, such necessary measures are subject to
>> abuse, and our history is littered with such abuses -- the internment
>> of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthy's blacklist, J. Edgar
>> Hoover's attempts to damage the careers and reputations of
>> controversial figures like Martin Luther King, and so forth.
>>
>> I grew up at a time when draft boards routinely drafted people to
>> silence them, when the government beat, gassed, and even shot people
>> who were exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate, when
>> the Nixon administration used the IRS to silence its political
>> opponents and plotted to use the CIA to control the FBI, so as much as
>> I'd like to believe the government will always behave responsibility
>> and put the country's true interest ahead of politics and ideology, I
>> can't ignore the real possibility for abuse. Our challenge is to do
>> what we must to prosecute the war, without sacrificing the principles
>> we're fighting for.
>
>If we're not very careful, we'll wind up with a country that we don't even
>recognize and maybe even worse than those we're fighting against now.
True. We -- not just us, but the world -- are between a rock and a
hard place on this one. Some people fear one, some fear the other; I
fear both.
Josh
Joy Yourcenar
<snip>
We have survived them all before, from Lincoln's suspending habeus
corpus to
> the WWII incaration of Japanese Americans to HUAC and McCarthy to the FBI
> infringements under Hoover in the 70's. We will survive this episode also.
>
The old joke about Tonto turning to the Long Ranger and saying "What's
this 'we', white man?" comes to mind. Ask a Japanese North American
(yep, Canada incarcerated its Japanese population too and let its
German and Italian citizens roam free). I'd ask you to ask an artist
ruined by the McCarthy hearings how well they "survived".
I do believe that eventually the U. S. Supreme Court will slap the
current infringments down, just like they did Jim Crow Laws and the
internment of the Japanese. The system is slow to correct, however,
often taking decades, and I wonder how complacent you'd be feeling if
it was a member of your family who had disappeared.
The worst tyranny is the tyranny of people who think they are doing
good and any means is acceptable to their good end. Certain liberties
were described as inalienable for a reason. The founding fathers knew
that, given a chance, even the most benign goverment would take them
away. Innocent until proven guilty has been a cornerstone of what
Americans like to think they are about.
The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can think you
can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for it.
Joy
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -William Pitt,
British prime-minister (1759-1806)
Joy Yourcenar
goddess
"Joshua P. Hill" <hi...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:me1mhu0jn2eqe11up...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:22:44 -0700, "goddess" <god...@casco.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
> >news:4hgkhuson98h9bhfj...@4ax.com...
>
> >> As I tried to say in my other post, I'm more concerned by the
> >> *potential* abuse of these new powers than I am by anything that's
> >> happened so far.
> >
> >So, you didn't notice how we got out last President foisted upon us? You
> >don't consider that to be something to be concerned about?
>
> On the contrary, I am concerned, which is why I specifically mentioned
> it in my earlier post:
>
> "But at other times, lesser men have stripped freedoms for the wrong
> reasons, and without necessity. Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, to name a
> few. And the Bush administration, of course, was swept into office on
> the wings of a bat."
Mea culpa.
> But I think that people can be imperfect and still do the right thing
> when the issues are important enough. Or do the wrong thing, but not
> to the point where it destroys us. I don't think things would work at
> all if that weren't true.
I don't think that things ARE working and I have NO faith anymore that
people will stop this crazy rollercoaster ride our officials are taking us
on.
> >I agree that strong measures are necessary, and fear
> >> that they will ultimately have to be far stronger than anything we've
> >> seen to date.
> >
> >I respectfully disagree.
>
> Depends, I think, entirely on what the terrorists do. If they start
> slaughtering people by the hundreds of thousands or millions or
> otherwise damage the country beyond our capacity or willingness to
> sustain such damage, things will I think get very Draconian. And,
> since I see no evidence that we're about to wipe out Al Qaeda, and
> every evidence that they're looking at the use of weapons of mass
> destruction, I fear that will be the case.
As I said, I'm more afraid of having our rights taken away, bit by bit until
we look more like the enemy than they do.
> >Unfortunately, such necessary measures are subject to
> >> abuse, and our history is littered with such abuses -- the internment
> >> of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthy's blacklist, J. Edgar
> >> Hoover's attempts to damage the careers and reputations of
> >> controversial figures like Martin Luther King, and so forth.
> >>
> >> I grew up at a time when draft boards routinely drafted people to
> >> silence them, when the government beat, gassed, and even shot people
> >> who were exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate, when
> >> the Nixon administration used the IRS to silence its political
> >> opponents and plotted to use the CIA to control the FBI, so as much as
> >> I'd like to believe the government will always behave responsibility
> >> and put the country's true interest ahead of politics and ideology, I
> >> can't ignore the real possibility for abuse. Our challenge is to do
> >> what we must to prosecute the war, without sacrificing the principles
> >> we're fighting for.
> >
> >If we're not very careful, we'll wind up with a country that we don't
even
> >recognize and maybe even worse than those we're fighting against now.
>
> True. We -- not just us, but the world -- are between a rock and a
> hard place on this one. Some people fear one, some fear the other; I
> fear both.
I fear the loss of individual freedoms that have been so hard fought for,
more than the current enemy. There always has to be an *enemy* for
politicos to strip away the rights of individuals. It makes it easier to do
so.
Marg
> Josh
Zinc
news:eb2f9625.02062...@posting.google.com...
> "Alan \(Ursus Major\)" <ur...@walkington.org> wrote in message
news:<cTsS8.619980$og1....@news.easynews.com>...
> The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can think you
> can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for it.
You may have meant Josh. Dennis doesn't seem to be the least bit apathetic - not
even overwhelmed, as I do occasionally.
j r sherman
>You may /believe/ that I have spoken wrongly; but by Heinlein,
why do so many people swear by a third-rate hack writer who wrote two
interesting books?
>I refuse to
>rant and rave like a lunatic (however harsh a mistress she may be).
what the fuck do you think you're doing now?
and to emphasize what Ms. Yourcenar said earlier, of course you think we
hystericals are being hysterical, you're not in the line of fire (and neither am
i). you're nice and safe and male and not-Arabic and probably not even swarthy.
you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
anyway, to be helpful, i have re-written the pledge of allegiance so that it
can't offend anyone, attend:
"I pledge allegiance, to j r sherman, who lives in the United States of America,
and to all his vices, for which he lies, one, or more, under he, quite
delectable, with libertines and ice cream for all."
now who could be offended by that?
love and kisses,
j r "a true patriot" sherman
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
***"Joy Yourcenar" <pene...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in message
***news:eb2f9625.02062...@posting.google.com...
***> "Alan \(Ursus Major\)" <ur...@walkington.org> wrote in message
***news:<cTsS8.619980$og1....@news.easynews.com>...
***
***> The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can
think you
***> can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for
it.
***
***You may have meant Josh. Dennis doesn't seem to be the least bit
apathetic - not
***even overwhelmed, as I do occasionally.
***
***
***
Not confuse incoherence with a lack of apathy.
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
...this kind of freedom is a sad affair under the stars.
~Nazim Hikmet~
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
***
***I fear the loss of individual freedoms that have been so hard
fought for,
***more than the current enemy. There always has to be an *enemy*
for
***politicos to strip away the rights of individuals. It makes it
easier to do
***so.
***
***Marg
Funny how the enemy never LOOKS like us.
Joy
mirrors for everyone!
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
Joshua P. Hill
penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com (Joy Yourcenar) wrote:
>Funny how the enemy never LOOKS like us.
Of course not. The enemy are Prebyterians!
Josh
Alan (Ursus Major)
either. Most of these people are simply posturing for the amusement of
themselves and their audience.
The problem is trivialised and the advocates marginalized by this type of
hysterical outburst. If you wish to be 'non-apathetic' do as I have; write
to your newspaper, write to your congressmen, call in to various radio and
tv shows.
Speak or write clearly and logically. Do /not/ give way to vituperation
against our 'unelected government'. Do /not/ compare the three-letter
agencies with the Gestapo. You /can/ have an effect if you don't come off
as a 'crazy'.
Stick your apathy where the sun don't shine, Joy. What have /you/ done
lately?
Alan Walkington
Idaho Falls, ID
Campbell, CA
"Joy Yourcenar" <penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in
message news:3d1e4d01...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
***"Joy Yourcenar" <pene...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in message
***news:eb2f9625.02062...@posting.google.com...
***> "Alan \(Ursus Major\)" <ur...@walkington.org> wrote in message
***news:<cTsS8.619980$og1....@news.easynews.com>...
***
***> The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can
think you
***> can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for
it.
***
***You may have meant Josh. Dennis doesn't seem to be the least bit
apathetic - not
***even overwhelmed, as I do occasionally.
I may be lots of things, but apathetic isn't one of them: there's a
big difference between a rational consideration of both sides of an
issue and apathy, and those who make the effort to think this through
will be very, very scared -- not of what Osama bin Laden or the Bush
Administration are going to do next week, but of what will happen to
civilization as it becomes, by a terrible Malthusian arithmetic,
increasingly vulnerable to the acts of a few fanatics. One ought not
accept too literally glib historical comparisons -- but think of the
classical world in its final years, failing, desperate, unsure of
which to fear more, the predations of the barbarians or the cruel
corrupt necessities of its politics, its taxes, and its armies.
Josh
Joy Yourcenar
<hi...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
***On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:43:32 GMT, "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com>
***wrote:
***
******"Joy Yourcenar" <pene...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in message
******news:eb2f9625.02062...@posting.google.com...
******> "Alan \(Ursus Major\)" <ur...@walkington.org> wrote in message
******news:<cTsS8.619980$og1....@news.easynews.com>...
******
******> The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can
***think you
******> can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for
***it.
******
******You may have meant Josh. Dennis doesn't seem to be the least bit
***apathetic - not
******even overwhelmed, as I do occasionally.
***
***I may be lots of things, but apathetic isn't one of them: there's a
***big difference between a rational consideration of both sides of an
***issue and apathy, and those who make the effort to think this
through
***will be very, very scared -- not of what Osama bin Laden or the
Bush
***Administration are going to do next week, but of what will happen
to
***civilization as it becomes, by a terrible Malthusian arithmetic,
***increasingly vulnerable to the acts of a few fanatics. One ought
not
***accept too literally glib historical comparisons -- but think of
the
***classical world in its final years, failing, desperate, unsure of
***which to fear more, the predations of the barbarians or the cruel
***corrupt necessities of its politics, its taxes, and its armies.
***
***Josh
I was not referring to Josh.
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
Joy Yourcenar
<hi...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
***On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:39:29 GMT,
***penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com (Joy Yourcenar)
wrote:
***
***>Funny how the enemy never LOOKS like us.
***
***Of course not. The enemy are Prebyterians!
***
***Josh
Timothy McVey and the Unibomber are Presbyterians?!? Who knew!
Joy
Joshua P. Hill
:-)
Josh
Art McNutt
ur...@walkington.org wrote on 6/27/02 2:04 AM:
[snip]
>
> We can protect ourselves and our families from home invasion with a gun. We
> cannot change the political makeup of this country with a gun.
Repeat after me: "This is the most naive statement imaginable."
---
Art
j r sherman
>
>Do not confuse the rabid rantings of these doom-sayers with lack of apathy,
>either. Most of these people are simply posturing for the amusement of
>themselves and their audience.
and you're doing this out of some deeper motives? do remember, alan, you're
posting here along with the Hystericals, being just as "hysterical" in your
denial that there's anything wrong going on, as you think we "Hystericals" are
being about the civil rights of all Americans.
>The problem is trivialised and the advocates marginalized by this type of
>hysterical outburst. If you wish to be 'non-apathetic' do as I have; write
>to your newspaper, write to your congressmen, call in to various radio and
>tv shows.
you're absolutely sure that no one here, none of the "Hystericals" (i love that
word) has done that?
>Speak or write clearly and logically. Do /not/ give way to vituperation
>against our 'unelected government'.
but this administration wasn't elected, alan. even you have to admit that.
>Do /not/ compare the three-letter
>agencies with the Gestapo.
too true, the Gestapo had better leather jackets and was better organized.
>You /can/ have an effect if you don't come off as a 'crazy'.
i am amused that you think the various complaints posted here about the actions
of our un-elected administration appears, to you, as "crazy". i think your
wholesale denial of what's going on strikes me as a little odd.
but as Ms. Joy and i have pointed out, none of these policies will have and
impact on you, so why should you worry about it? you can just call people
"hysterical" if they don't agree with you.
>Stick your apathy where the sun don't shine, Joy.
that was rude.
>What have /you/ done lately?
intelligently, she moved to Canada, and is teaching her children to respect the
civil rights of all people in their place of birth.
i'd move to Canada, but i wouldn't be able to claim it was out of some altruisic
emotion....i'm just going there for the girls.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
sophie
>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:03:59 +0200, Diogenes Benders
><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>>> 90% of the time I disagree with you, Martijn,
>
>>About what?
>
>Probably about the same thing everybody else (except Sophie?)
>disagrees with you about -- 90% of what you say.
was that remark intended to be _quite_ as insulting as it ended up
being?
for the record, I find Martijn's persistent yank-baiting boring and
annoying; as much for the responses he generates as for anything he
says. but I am constantly amazed by how seriously you all seem to take
him. It started with the veggies, and the reactions he got to a - fairly
entertaining - joke beggared belief.
and no, I don't agree with his stance on onions.
politically, Martijn's view of the U.S. isn't really unusual in Europe;
where we are also, I think, far more inclined to take criticism of our
_own_ countries with a degree of objectivity than are Americans. It's a
cultural thing. What is more unusual is his attitude and stance.
I'd be very surprised if any of the Europeans disagree with 90% of what
he says; other than the absolutely obvious done-for-effect posts; and I
don't see a lot of difference between many of the things he says that I
assume are his actual beliefs rather than josh-baiting and many of the
things that, say jr, Dale and Joy would stand up for.
and creatively; I very much enjoy and respect his work. It wouldn't
amaze me to find out that his persistent pub boor behaviour here is part
of an on-going project. which is more than can be said for the childish,
tasteless and unintelligent gambit that is insulting a
non-native-speaker's (excellent) command of the English language.
And no, I don't give a fuck who started it. I work in a school, and
would like you BOTH to stop.
--
sophie
Art McNutt
scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 6/26/02 10:06 PM:
[snip]
> They couldn't even stop 14 year old Audrey Hepburn from
> transferring messages and transporting arms to the Resistance.
>
> They couldn't even stop 14 year old Audrey Hepburn from
> transferring messages and transporting arms to the Resistance.
>
> They couldn't even stop 14 year old Audrey Hepburn from
> transferring messages and transporting arms to the Resistance.
>
Heh. And don't never forgit it neither. Frail little girls used in the
French Resistance were more effective than Middle Easterners posing as
"students."
>> Cops are
>> smart only compared to the criminals dim enough to let themselves get
>> arrested.
>
> But police (Constables On Patrol, they ain't) are /not/ smart
> compared with the criminals. The criminals turn themselves in for
> the room and board. A man who /sells women/ struts his feathers and
> his moola in broad daylight in front of a dozen police who don't
> make as much combined as he does from /selling people in the U.S./.
> A man who bilked his own employees of millions, and paid /himself/
> a $3.2-million "severance" before handing them the toilet paper and
> the police the shreddings...
> A blood-spattered "suspect" seZ, "but the glove doesn't fit."
> "If people go down to the end of the town, What Can Anyone Do?"
> Police are hired because they are /safe/ to have around Princess'
> criminal mouth. And even /safer/ to have around Princess'
> "metaphysical" assertion that Princess has Acquired The Power by
> Putting On The Dress.
> Thus, the whole wad of them in a bunch, with their priests and
> Princesses into the bargain, cannot deal with a /single juvenile
> with a cigarette/.
> They can deal with a juvie with a 9mm?
> Hear that echo...
>>
There was a girl out partying with two friends in LA (?) 'bout a year ago.
The car breaks down in bad part of town. They pull into a gas station (it's
about 2 am) but find it's /not/ a service station. Two hoof it a few blocks
down and leave the driver, a 20 year old female in the locked car. Knowing
it's a bad part of town from the git-go, the female pulls a .25 Auto from
her purse, and being fairly inebriated and exhausted, she falls asleep with
it in her lap. One of the attendants comes out to check on the strange car
parked on the lot, sees the gun and calls the Non-Constables on patrol. The
first ones arrive, see the gun too, and call for back up. Later, we have 15
non-constables on patrol standing around the car--brainstorming ideas of how
to deal with this situation, which really isn't a situation at all.
True to their high state of training and impressive mental powers, they
decide that it is simply too dangerous to tap on her window and check to see
if she is all right and would she please put the weapon down and stand away
from the vehicle. They decide on the old "break the passenger side window
with a crowbar and reach for the pistol before she reacts ploy." Of course,
the 14 other non-constables on patrol will cover the maneuver with their
service revolvers and 9mm Brownings to keep the "situation" from getting out
of hand.
Crash!
Stunned that the driver woke up and instinctively raised up her .25 as she
was rudely awakened and sprayed with broken glass, the 14 monkeys in blue
opened fire and ended their little experiment with some 25 bullets fired
point blank.
City management wasn't happy. But the investigation proved that they, while
ignoring procedure, hadn't acted outside their authority nor outside the
frame of the conditions and of reasonable response as they then perceived
them at the time.
I wish I had the gumption to utter a har har.
>> "Baaaaah baaaaahh." Translated to English this means "That Rod and that
>> Staff are buggin' me. Why doesn't the shepherd lead us to green pastures?"
>
> /Quis custodiet ipsos custodes/. Translated to English this means
> "the sum of 'safe' is 'safer'."
> Some actually hold it to mean, "The Clothes aren't wearing any
> Emperor," but we all know /those/ "people" are /crazy/, and are
> "terrorists" who can be "feasibly tortured under the Constitution."
> Yup. A couple months ago it was Ted Koppel on /Nightline/.
> Today, it is /The American Legion (Magazine)/, "For God and
> Country" since 1919.
> $2.50 July 2002. Page 12 et seq. By Alan Dershowitz. "When All
> Else Fails, Why Not Torture?"
> Well, I'll /tell/ you, Alan. Because you haven't even /tried/
> anything else.
> Because you're too /pricksucking yellow/ to wear your own sword in
> your own hand.
> Because the rest of us have to maintain your pricksucking
> /equality/ for you by being disarmed by your /servants/ when we
> board airplanes or walk our own yards.
> So, Alan, I'll just remind you -- once -- that inciting to riot,
> inciting to mutiny, and poisoning the student body are summary
> capital offenses.
>
> /Maleficos non patieris vivere/. Translated into English, this
> means "Thou shalt not suffer a priest to live."
> If you want it, you got it.
> I prefer the 1st Amendment. Translated into English, it means
> "You can call your priest anything you want to call your priest --
> except my priest."
> That way, I don't have to "suspend" him for inciting to riot, etc.
> Because he is /not/ an "authority," the rioters /don't hafta
> listen/. Their ruckus is /their own choice and fault, each/.
> But you keep your priest outta my law, Alan.
> You keep your little yellow Suck The Daddy religion outta my law,
> Alan.
> Or I will.
> As long as he's just a priest, claiming how "nice" it would be to
> own people, the 1st Amendment -- translated into English, this means
> " ..|.. " (that's the "1" sticking up there in the middle, see it,
> Alan?) -- says it is a sufficient defense to say "fuck you."
> And as long as your servants preach that what /I/ say is
> "meaningless," "has no authority," and "doesn't count," that's fine,
> too, Alan. Because the sum of zeros is zero and we're all Equal and
> all that shit. So what /you/ say is "meaningless," "has no
> authority," and "doesn't count." And that goes even more so for
> your /servants/, Alan. If we all mean nothing, then we all mean
> nothing, and even your Mommy can't anoint her unders over.
> But if your religion becomes the "Law," Alan, I shall /obey/ it.
> If your religion /owns/ people enough to give them a stack of
> Orderrss ZISS HIGHL, if your religion /owns/ people enough to
> "torture them feasibly," if your religion owns their incomes, their
> houses, their lives, their fortunes, their honors, then I shall most
> feasibly /obey/ you, Alan. And your servants, Alan.
> I shall own you for about five seconds of /target practice/.
> Hey. /You/ said what /you/ wanted to own people for. You wasted
> them, that's /your/ problem.
> Now it's /my/ turn.
> And it's /your law/.
> I, FM16 Sir Dennis M. Hammes, do ordain, establish, maintain, and
> defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies,
> foreign and domestic.
> /s/ dmh Xp17677997
Thanks for saying that, Dennis.
>>
>> Vote with your feet, Curly.
>
> Yes. What Bob voted with in most of his stories. Why I listened to
> him "only up to a point." We don't get off this cooling ball any
> time soon. So we take care of this cooling ball.
> Knowwhutahmeeeen, Vern?
Well, /I/ won't live to get off this cooling ball, nor, perhaps, will my
boys. There are other ways of voting with the feet---without simply walking
away. Standing away from the herd is a good starting point. Keeping a
freakin' /eye/ on what they are doing is another good first step.
---
Art
Dale Houstman
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Qad4K+Sku4G9Ew$S...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Joshua P. Hill <jh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> said
> >On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:03:59 +0200, Diogenes Benders
> ><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> I'd be very surprised if any of the Europeans disagree with 90% of what
> he says; other than the absolutely obvious done-for-effect posts; and I
> don't see a lot of difference between many of the things he says that I
> assume are his actual beliefs rather than josh-baiting and many of the
> things that, say jr, Dale and Joy would stand up for.
Maybe, but I really wouldn't know. Although I do join in from time to time,
for the most part I stopped reading him closely when he harangued me
endlessly about how I wasn't a surrealist, and - despite my attempt to
present a reasonable discourse on why I felt (in fact "knew") that I was, he
sidestepped (as usual) any rational conversation and just kept insisting he
knew more about myself and my work than I did! He even brought this
stupidity up quite on his own not that long ago! At that stage, I felt he
had crossed over from being a cantankerous but relatively intelligent
presence to being a boor. And - in this latest tirade - his insistence on
"being right" (and insultingly so) even as he promulgates such obvious
stupidies as Hispanics being pretty much the same as Gypsies (to cover up
his initial idiocy about the vast anti-Gypsy sentiment in the U.S.) and
Romany meaning "being from Romania." Anyone can make mistakes of course, but
it takes a real person to admit them when they are overt. I've been to
Europe, was born in England, and lived in Germany, among other things, and I
can tell you that he's just being an asshole for the sake of being an
asshole. And one cannot totally separate what you generously describe as an
"ongoing project" from one's opinion of his behavior which is mere
provacation without substance. And - if this is part of some Conceptual
Process - I go on record as resenting it ahead of time, and - like most
conceptual art since Duchamp - finding it lacking.
> and creatively; I very much enjoy and respect his work. It wouldn't
> amaze me to find out that his persistent pub boor behaviour here is part
> of an on-going project. which is more than can be said for the childish,
> tasteless and unintelligent gambit that is insulting a
> non-native-speaker's (excellent) command of the English language.
Martin consistently insults others for trivial errors, and corrects
(incorrectly) Americans upon their grasp of American culture.
You let him go too easily.
dmh
>
j r sherman
>
>Joshua P. Hill <jh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> said
>>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:03:59 +0200, Diogenes Benders
>><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>> 90% of the time I disagree with you, Martijn,
>>
>>>About what?
>>
>>Probably about the same thing everybody else (except Sophie?)
>>disagrees with you about -- 90% of what you say.
>
>was that remark intended to be _quite_ as insulting as it ended up
>being?
>
>for the record, I find Martijn's persistent yank-baiting boring and
>annoying; as much for the responses he generates as for anything he
>says.
this is true.
>but I am constantly amazed by how seriously you all seem to take
>him.
well, semi-seriously.
>It started with the veggies, and the reactions he got to a - fairly
>entertaining - joke beggared belief.
>and no, I don't agree with his stance on onions.
ah-HA!
>politically, Martijn's view of the U.S. isn't really unusual in Europe;
probably not all that different from mine. but sometimes he let's off a doozy
that's just so badly ignorant that it begs comment, which he gets. like i've
said before, he's a dutch chuckles.
>where we are also, I think, far more inclined to take criticism of our
>_own_ countries with a degree of objectivity than are Americans.
WHAT! there's nothing wrong with America!!!!! what a FOUL Brit, or English,
or....whatever you guys are, i have to check with Pete Ross about that, thing to
say!
well, okay, you're probably right. but we make the best Porn. can't NOBODY say
we can't!
>It's a
>cultural thing. What is more unusual is his attitude and stance.
>I'd be very surprised if any of the Europeans disagree with 90% of what
>he says; other than the absolutely obvious done-for-effect posts; and I
>don't see a lot of difference between many of the things he says that I
>assume are his actual beliefs rather than josh-baiting and many of the
>things that, say jr, Dale and Joy would stand up for.
there's a difference, Sophie. a BIG-OL-HUGE-FUCKING difference. i am more
charming than benders. it's just so completely obvious. i can't disagree with
your other points in this post, but on the charm factor, compared to benders,
i'm just off the charts.
oh, yeah, Joy and Dale are charming too.
>and creatively; I very much enjoy and respect his work. It wouldn't
>amaze me to find out that his persistent pub boor behaviour here is part
>of an on-going project. which is more than can be said for the childish,
>tasteless and unintelligent gambit that is insulting a
>non-native-speaker's (excellent) command of the English language.
>
>And no, I don't give a fuck who started it. I work in a school, and
>would like you BOTH to stop.
HA! you didn't mention me, so i'm FREE to do what ever i want!!!!!
you did say you worked with children.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
>
>sophie
j r sherman
christ in the everglades, art and i agree on something.
i'm fairly sure they'll be ice skating in hell this evening.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
sk...@nowhere.man
<hi...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
some snippin'
>On the contrary, I am concerned, which is why I specifically mentioned
>it in my earlier post:
>
>"But at other times, lesser men have stripped freedoms for the wrong
>reasons, and without necessity. Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, to name a
>few. And the Bush administration, of course, was swept into office on
>the wings of a bat."
>
>But I think that people can be imperfect and still do the right thing
>when the issues are important enough. Or do the wrong thing, but not
>to the point where it destroys us. I don't think things would work at
>all if that weren't true.
>Depends, I think, entirely on what the terrorists do. If they start
>slaughtering people by the hundreds of thousands or millions or
>otherwise damage the country beyond our capacity or willingness to
>sustain such damage, things will I think get very Draconian. And,
>since I see no evidence that we're about to wipe out Al Qaeda, and
>every evidence that they're looking at the use of weapons of mass
>destruction, I fear that will be the case.
>True. We -- not just us, but the world -- are between a rock and a
>hard place on this one. Some people fear one, some fear the other; I
>fear both.
>
>Josh
Jee-SuS, Josh;
I'm sorry to see how persistently you've avoided acknowledging the
bitter fact that the US has been utterly corrupted by a
front-organization of thugs, goons, technocrats, and ideological
opportunists, managed by a coalition of tycoons, corporations,
globalists and profiteers; I've poked my head into the NG occasionally
to see what's up, but this latest thread featuring your pro-jingoist
tirade now prompts my comment; I must agree with PJR, you're nothing
like the J.P. Hill of old, whose displays of wit and awareness were a
pleasure to read;
How can you POSSIBLY maintain such a fatalist defense of this corrupt,
autocratic regime, with its rabid war-mongering thinly disguising an
Imperialist agenda, so overcome with paranoia and duplicity that it is
repudiating the most basic principles of justice and liberty?; If you
applied yourself with a modicum of integrity to researching current
events from the world-press or alternative news sources, beyond the
corporate right-wing controlled mainstream media, you'd know that the
'War on Terrorism' is nothing but a smokescreen to legitimize the US's
ongoing strategy of acheiving global dominion by any means necessary;
But don't take MY word for it, the evidence is well-documented from a
number of independant, credible sources; The US, for the past 50
years, has been a world leader in supporting and contracting terror in
defense of the capitalist model of economics; The self-serving claims
of 'fighting terrorism' is so outrageously hypocritical when one
examines the history of US interventionism around the world, which
although hidden and repressed in order to perpetuate the myth of US
magnanimity and humanitarian benevolence, is nevertheless available if
one makes an effort to locate the truth; Certainly you are familiar
enough with significant elements of the US history overthrowing
legitimate democratic governments and reform movements, and supporting
totalitarian regimes and dictatorships that were amenable to American
interests, to suspect that the American people are NOT being told the
whole truth about the consequences of many of our Foreign Policy
actions and low-intensity conflicts; What makes you think the
'official' version of 9/11 is not just some more clever hype to
facilitate the US establishing a New World Order, as evidence amply
suggests?
from:
http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=186974&group=webcast
The CIA: A brief history
Yuno Hu 4:31pm Tue Jun 18 '02 article#186974
With the "lethal force" directive to topple Saddam announcement, it
is perhaps time to re-publish this article prepared during the
failed coup in Venezuela. It is based on several film documentaries;
the most important of which -- The Secret Government -- should be seen
by all. A link is provided in this essay to an excerpt.
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. --
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trial
In 1953, the CIA conducted its first major covert operation
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ciairan.htm> - to
overthrow Iran's legitimate president, Mohammed Mossadeq.
Mr. Mossadeq had made the mistake other world leaders have paid
dearly for: he decided to nationalize his country's oil industry, a
resource controlled at the time by foreign companies.
Enter the Dulles brothers - John and Allen. John Foster was the US
Secretary of State, while Allen was, you guessed it, the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency. It would be no exaggeration to say,
the Dulles' were the founding architects of post-war US foreign
policy.
Eisenhower approved their plot to overthrow Iran's president by
organizing mobs to attack the government, beginning a bloody war that
finally toppled Mossadeq and allowed the installation of the Shah,
who, big surprise, handed over half the country's oil fields to US oil
mobsters.
Over the next 20 years, the other arm of the US military-industrial
oiligarchy dumped $18 billion worth of armaments into the country, and
the CIA, through SAVAK - the Iranian secret police - launched a reign
of terror on the civilian population. In 1976, Amnesty International
said SAVAK had the worst human rights record on the planet, their
CIA-textbook torture techniques were "beyond belief."
In 1979, with nothing left to lose, the Iranian people rose up and
overthrew the Shah. They got Ayatollah Khomeini, in exchange.
And we know how much those events got Uncle Sam's red white and blue
boxers in a twist. So the blundering CIA went to work again. This
time backing the guy next door, Saddam Hussein.
From its inception, the shadowy American "intelligence" network has
shown up everywhere corporate profits, especially those of the
powerful US oil barons, have been at risk, operating under the cloak
of democracy but leaving fingerprints that match the bloody hands of
the plutocrats.
Right after WW II, as the Russians expanded their sphere of influence
in Central and Eastern Europe, an elite group of industrialists and
shadowy bureaucrats got together to influence the direction of US
foreign policy. They hired out-of-work Nazis - people like Klaus
Barbi, the Butcher of Leon - to form a subversive gang of spies and
dirty operatives.
In 1947, President Truman signed the National Security Act. It
changed the thrust of US foreign policy, through the National Security
Council and it's operational arm, the CIA.
In a controversial 1987 documentary called The Secret Government
<http://www.peace.ca/moyersvideo.htm>, respected journalist and
former-special assistant to Lyndon B. Johnson, Bill Moyers described
this national security state as "an interlocking network of official
functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and
super-patriots" carrying on lawless covert wars for personal profit.
For over 50 years, the US has been waging what has been described by
ex-CIA agents like John Stockwell, the highest ranking agent to go
public, as a Third World war, a continuous terrorist destabilization
of developing countries that have no ability to strike back in any
meaningful way (until recently, that is).
The 1975 Church Committee, the first government investigation to
officially peer into the murky world of the CIA, estimated 900 major
operations and 3,000 minor operations over the previous 14 years.
John Stockwell (who ran the CIA's Angola operation) says the numbers
extrapolate to 3,000 major ops and 10,000 minor ones over the life of
the agency. The human carnage of "the third bloodiest war in history"
is estimated at 6 million souls.
The CIA's Phoenix Operation, that was responsible for escalation of
the Vietnam war also began in 1954, using the same methods as in Iran,
creating South Vietnam's secret police that dished out the most feral
slaughter: live burnings, garroting, rape, torture, sabotage. Ralph
McGehee
<http://www.vwip.org/articles/m/McGeheeRalph_VietnamsPhoenixProgram.htm>
is another CIA agent who re-discovered his conscience and has written
about his part in the operation, describing himself now as "nearly
insane" during his time with the agency. Then there was the fake Gulf
of Tonkin incident invented by President Lyndon B. Johnson to expand
the operation, and the rest is, as they say, history.
The US/CIA regime was becoming the most demonic cult of greed and
destruction that the world has ever witnessed. Its prime operators
were:
Theodore Shackley, Thomas Climes, Gen. John Singlaub, Gen. Richard
Secord, Albert Hakim.
Shakley and Climes were ideological right wing war-mongers, involved
(with the Dulles bros.) in the Bay of Pigs debacle, the failed
invasion of Cuba. Shakley also played part in that other September 11
(1973) invasion of Chile, that culminated in the assassination of
Salvador Allende. Shakley was rewarded by George Bush Sr. (CIA
director 1976-7) with position of Assistant Director of Operations.
Climes worked under Shakley as Case Officer. Singlaub worked with
Climes and Shakley in Vietnam, running secret offensives into Laos.
Secord, supervised Laos air operations.
Albert Hakim was a salesman for US weapons companies, who would later
figure in Iran Contra. A real team of patriots!
These people scooped tonnes of weapons out of the theatre of war in SE
Asia. Laos, in particular, was a kind of private war, instigated and
supplied by this cartel of bloodthirsty murderers and war profiteers.
They turned next to Latin America, imperialist America's favourite
playground.
Of course, you are familiar with that other 1954 (busy times!) CIA
plot, in Guatemala. Jacobo Arbenz was the hapless "socialist" there.
Again, a moderate, hugely popular president, elected in a democratic
election, beating out a corrupt American puppet. But he made two fatal
mistakes: First, he allowed a small communist party to remain. Second,
he undertook land reform in a country where 3% of the citizenry owned
70% of the land. He turned over 1.5 million acres, including his own
family's estate, to starving peasants. Much of the land was (unused
and duly compensated, according to the company's own land valuation)
acreage owned by the American United Fruit Company (Chiquita), in
which the Dulles Bros. held stock. When rag-tag CIA "rebels" pouring
over the border from Honduras (later staging ground for the Contras)
failed, the CIA used their own planes to bomb the Capital. Bye, bye,
Mr. Arbenz; hello 30 years of bloody torture and suffering:
"Operation Success."
These were heady times for the agency. People like Richard Bissel,
CIA chief of covert operations, oversaw the Executive Action Branch,
essentially an assassination squad (closed after the Church Committee
revelations, re-constituted, it would appear by this week's
announcement of the intention to knock off Saddam Hussein) But even
Bissel, a cold-hearted, cold war warrior, got queasy over recruitment
of Mafia goons like, John Rosselli, Sam Giancana and Santo
Trafficante.
"The United States is a peace-loving nation and our foreign policy is
designed to lessen the threat of war as well as aggression." --
Gerald Ford on appointing George H.W. Bush CIA director, on Jan. 30,
1976.
Latin America's death squad leaders were trained right in the US, at
Fort Benning, Georgia's School of the Americas <http://www.soaw.org>.
It's too sickening to describe the tidal wave of blood these bastards
unleashed, so I'll chose just one date, one place: Dec. 11, 1981, El
Mazote.
During Vice President (GHW) Bush's watch (Reagan wasn't exactly awake)
a dozen US-backed paramilitary troops rounded up the inhabitants of
this small, El Salvadorian village and gunned them down. The mass
grave yielded 900 men, women and children. 131 children under 12
years, three infants under three months. One woman, Rufina Amaya,
survived by scrambling under nearby bushes as her children screamed:
"Mama, they're killing us." Ten of the 12 murderers were recent
graduates of the School of the Americas.
This was the way it was (and still is) in much of Latin America.
Edgar Chamoro, recruited by the CIA to lead the Contras has admitted:
"We were used to deceive the American people . . . The tactics of
the Contras was to terrorize the Nicaraguan people."
The Iran Contra investigations again revealed the mayhem at the heart
of America. Bush Sr. never did answer questions regarding contact
between his aides and Contra operatives. Congressman Jack Brooks of
Texas summed up by saying: "We've been supplying weapons to terrorist
nations [actually terrorist cells trained by the US and inserted into
sovereign nations], trading arms for hostages, involving the US
government in military activities in direct contravention of the law,
diverting public funds into private pockets and secret unofficial
activities, selling access to the president for thousands of dollars,
dispensing cash and foreign money orders out of a White House safe,
accepting gifts and falsifying papers to cover it up, altering and
shredding national security documents and lying to the Congress.
"Now, I believe that the American people understand that democracy
cannot survive that kind of abuse."
In fact, it hadn't. In spite of grandstanding congressional
investigations (that indicted no-one), democracy had long since
expired, particularly for the victims of this renegade terrorist
regime. The people who erased democracy - the fascists and their
cadre of blood-soaked gangsters - had already usurped the
military-industrial architecture of the most powerful nation on earth
to serve their own aquisitive agenda.
"Just imagine," Bill Moyers mused, in 1987, "that [then-CIA director]
William Casey's dream came true; suppose the enterprise grew into a
super-secret, self-financing, self-perpetuating organization." That
organization is now the most brazen, rogue death squad on earth,
pursuing their promised "full-spectrum dominance" over this benighted,
suffering planet, even as the larger part (70% if we are to believe
the polls) of their zombie-like subjects believe they are the divine
protectors of truth and freedom.
Elite executioners operate at the apex of the renewed Bush family
dynasty. Dubyah, as he is fondly referred to by the fully- mesmerized,
is really a bit of a flunky figurehead, with dad's most trusted fixer,
Dick Cheney, at the helm and other weapons of mass destruction
traders, like James Baker III, occupying critical seats around the
boardroom table.
The US hasn't actually declared an authentic war since 1941, but
(besides Afghanistan - Operation Make It Safe For Unocal the most
disgusting phoney war in recent memory (for those who have one) was
George Bush Sr's 1989 invasion of Panama, the subject of an Academy
Award-winning documentary film: The Panama Deception
<http://www.webslingerz.com/eclauset/mediasouth/project/panama/>.
All to cover his slimy CIA relationship with (SOA grad) Manuel
Noriega.
Thousands of civilians were slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves
by US troops. Show this lovely record of Bush family entertainment to
your relatives, if Ashcroft hasn't hunted down every copy in the land
and had a bonfire. You'll love the scene where the graves are opened.
But, back to Iraq and the "Hitlerian" Saddam Hussein. The Bush
oil/weapons cartel created the man. Not that he isn't a bad actor
(not as bad as Bozo Reagan, though his recent cabbage role is Oscar
material), but without the billions of dollars and millions of tonnes
of military hardware, chemical and biological agents lavished on him
by US arms manufacturers
<http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html>, Saddam
would be just another strutting demagogue.
The US corporate security state created the Saddam Frankenstein, and
when it suited their purpose they tempted him into their trap and
demonized him. Just like the mujahedeen, one day you're a "freedom
fighter," the next day an "evildoer."
Iraq wanted Kuwait to help drive the price of oil up, to pay its
massive Iran war debt. Kuwait wasn't playing, even though it had,
from Hussein's point of view, been protected from Iranian invaders by
Iraq. In 1990, (commenting on his threat to claim the long-disputed
Kuwait territory, delineated by the Brits, in 1922/23.) US Ambassador
to Iraq April Glaspie said to Saddam: "We have no opinion on your
Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of
State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first
given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated
with America."
Then, in went (arms dealer) Baker (posing as Secretary of State) in
the final charade prior to sending in "Stormin'" Norman Schwartzkopf.
Running the show, of course, was present Vice President Dick Cheney,
(then Secretary of "Defense") who in the interim went back to the oil
industry, as CEO of Halliburton Oil, built a pipeline through Burma
with SLORC's slave labour pool (very "flexible") and - his big coup -
amalgamated Brown & Root, (the company that elected Pres. Johnson, who
then rewarded them with military contracts), that now provides
"discrete services" to the oil & gas industry, right down to mess
tents and meals, for the new mercenary armies of the 21st century oil
barons.
The Gulf War ghouls hired the Bush buddy public relations firm Hill &
Knowlton to cook up a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin outrage to stir up
patriotism. The "incident" was Iraqi devils tossing babies out of
incubators in a Kuwait hospital.
Except it was a total lie.
Not long after the end of the world's biggest arms industry ad
campaign in the desert, Bill Moyers' After the War documentary told
the true story.
The blubbering Kuwaiti girl, who delivered the tale on CNN - repeated
by George Bush in subsequent speeches - turned out to be the daughter
of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, coached in her acting role by
Hill & Knowlton's propagandists.
Now, if you really want to weigh the balance of evil deeds (not
counting the estimated half million dead Iraqi children, victims of
the sanctions) check out
<http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/extremedeformities.htm>
(gag warning) what appears to be the legacy of those trusty depleted
uranium shells Bush, Baker <http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html>
(Carlyle Group) and their excellent weapons designers lobbed into Iraq
in quantities unparalleled in the history of modern warfare.
So, what did else did the Desert Storm blow in? Here is a transcript
of a good old Larry King Live interview, on CNN a few years back:
Larry King: Why do you think Americans want to keep the sanctions?
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz: That's their policy. It's
against the will of the international community. . . . I think
they are making profits. But I don't want to make accusations.
LK: Financial profits?
TA: Yes
LK: Like how?
TA: Who's selling oil instead of Iraq?
LK: Who?
TA: They know very well that Saudi Arabia jumped from 5 million
barrels a day to 8 million barrels a day. Three million barrels -
Iraq's share - has been added to the share of Saudi Arabia.
LK: And we would take this to a war front to protect Saudi Arabia's
making money?
TA: No. You are sharing that money - Everybody knows it.
Everybody, that is, who hasn't had a painless Hill & Knowlton
lobotomy.
Perhaps, though, the Big Oil Gangsters aren't quite as smart as they
used to be. Or maybe their tired old MO just doesn't wash anymore.
The recent clumsy, Keystone Cops coup in oil-rich Venezuela would be a
joke, were it not for the blood spilled on the streets of Caracas. As
it is, the CIA's bloody fingerprints are all over it:
A group of "freedom fighters" rise up against "a ruinous demagogue"
(to quote a hilarious New York Times editorial), who has been
funneling his country's oil profits into silly social development
programs. He unleashes his goons on "the people." The military (whose
leaders happen to be SOA grads) oust him and. . . guess what? They
install a "respected business leader" (again, NYT's words) as
president, who happens to be an oil industry executive.
This time though, the CIA hadn't prepared the ground well enough, and
the people - the real people - rose up and drove America's puppet out
of the palace and cheered and danced in the streets as their kidnapped
President, Hugo Chávez, returned triumphantly to the capital.
So, what to make of the Washington Post article last weekend
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57969-2002Jun15.html>,
announcing a Bush administration directive to the CIA to eliminate
Saddam Hussein, using "lethal force," if necessary? The story,
written by veteran Washington correspondent Bob Woodward (Watergate
reporter and author of The Secret Wars of the CIA) was obviously a
deliberate plant by the increasingly desperate plutocrats. Whatever
its purpose, given a little history, subterfuge can no longer cover
the obvious (and need I add depraved?) agenda of Big Oil.
In addition to the documentaries mentioned above, for more information
on issues covered in this essay, see also:
Cover-up: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair
<http://www.webslingerz.com/eclauset/mediasouth/project/cu/index.html>
by Barbara Trent of the Empowerment Project
<http://www.empowermentproject.org/>, narrated by the late Elizabeth
Montgomery.
School of Assassins <http://www.richtervideos.com/d_soa.html> narrated
by Susan Sarandon, featuring Father Roy Bourgeois, talking about this
school located in Fort Benning, Georgia, where soldiers from Central
and South America are trained in the art of torture, terrorism, and
assassination.
SOA Watch <http://www.soaw.org>
Genocide by Sanctions <http://www.iacenter.org/genocide.htm> produced
and directed by Gloria La Riva, featuring former Attorney General of
the United States, Ramsey Clark
______________________________
The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th,
2001 www.thewaronfreedom.com
Copyright © 2002 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
By obstructing investigations of terrorists, and by maintaining what
effectively amounts to a covert financial, political and even military
alliance with them, the Bush administration has effectively supported
their activities. The objective of U.S. policy has, furthermore, been
focused principally on securing elite strategic and economic interests
abroad, while deterring public understanding at home. As shocking and
horrifying as these conclusions are, they are based on an extensive
analysis of events leading up to, during and after 11th September
2001.
(....)
· Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of religious
extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan since the 1980s.
The U.S., however, is directly responsible for the cultivation of a
distorted 'jihadi' ideology that fuelled, along with U.S. arms and
training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within the country
after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.
· The U.S. approved of the rise of the Taliban, and went on to at
least tacitly support the movement, despite its egregious human rights
abuses against Afghan civilians, to secure regional strategic and
economic interests.
· The U.S. government and military planned a war on Afghanistan prior
to 11th September for at least a year, a plan rooted in broad
strategic and economic considerations related to control of Eurasia,
and thus the consolidation of unrivalled global U.S. hegemony.
· The U.S. government has consistently blocked investigations and
inquiries of Saudi royals, Saudi businessmen, and members of the bin
Laden family, implicated in supporting Osama bin Laden and terrorist
operatives linked to him. This amounts in effect to protecting leading
figures residing in Saudi Arabia who possess ties with Osama bin
Laden.
· The U.S. government has consistently blocked attempts to indict and
apprehend Osama bin Laden, thus effectively protecting him directly.
· The U.S. government has allowed suspected terrorists linked to Osama
bin Laden to train at U.S. military facilities, financed by Saudi
Arabia, as well as U.S. flight schools, for years.
· High-level elements of the U.S. government, military, intelligence
and law enforcement agencies received numerous credible and urgent
warnings of the 11th September attacks, which were of such a nature as
to successively reinforce one another. Only a full-fledged inquiry
would suffice to clarify in a definite manner why the American
intelligence community failed to act on the warnings received.
However, the nature of the multiple warnings received, along with the
false claims by U.S. intelligence agencies that they had no specific
warnings of what was about to occur, suggests that they indeed had
extensive foreknowledge of the attacks, but are now attempting to
prevent public recognition of this.
· In spite of extensive forewarnings, the U.S. Air Force emergency
response systems collapsed systematically on 11th September, in
violation of the clear rules that are normally and routinely followed
on a strict basis. This is an event that could only conceivably occur
as a result of deliberate obstructions to the following of Standard
Operating Procedures for emergency response.
· To succeed, such systematic obstructions could only be set in place
by key U.S. government and military officials. Both President Bush and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers displayed sheer
indifference to the 11th September attacks as they were occurring,
which further suggests their particular responsibility. Once again, a
full-fledged inquiry is required into this matter.
· Independent journalists revealed that Mahmoud Ahmed, as ISI
Director-General, had channeled U.S. government funding to Mohamed
Atta, described as the "lead hijacker" by the FBI. The U.S. government
protected him, and itself, by asking him to resign quietly after the
discovery, thus blocking a further inquiry and a potential scandal.
· The events of 11th September have in fact been of crucial benefit to
the Bush administration, justifying the consolidation of elite power
and profit both within the U.S. and throughout the world. The tragic
events that involved the murder of thousands of innocent civilians
were exploited by the U.S. government to crack down on domestic
freedoms, while launching a ruthless bombing campaign on the largely
helpless people of Afghanistan, directly resulting in the further
killing of almost double the number of civilians who died on 9-11.
There are a variety of possible scenarios regarding the role of the
U.S. government that explain these facts. All of these possibilities,
however, strongly suggest a significant degree of U.S. complicity in
the events of 11th September. This does not imply that the U.S. was
involved in orchestrating the events of 11th September from start to
finish, or that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
were 'staged' by the U.S, or that those responsible were on a direct
U.S. payroll in receipt of direct U.S. orders.
What it does mean, is that the U.S. government, through its actions
and inactions, effectively facilitated the attacks, protected those
responsible, blocked attempts to prevent the attacks, and maintained
close political, financial, military and intelligence ties to key
figures who supported those responsible. Whether or not every stage of
these policies was a result of deliberation, the role that the U.S.
government has played both historically and currently in key events
leading up to, and after, 11th September, strongly suggests U.S.
responsibility for those events.
At the very least, this amounts to complicity through negligence or
omission, for the simple reason that the U.S. government has
systematically behaved with wilful recklessness, with sheer
indifference as to the probable consequences in terms of loss of
American lives, in the pursuit of strategic and economic interests.
Furthermore, the consistent and indeed systematic manner in which
these policies have been implemented, even in the aftermath of 11th
September, also suggests deliberate complicity. [595]
There is, of course, a context to this complicity, which establishes
that the U.S. relationship with Osama bin Laden is far more complex
than conventional opinion would have us believe. The Saudi
establishment appears to have been supporting bin Laden largely as a
form of bribery, payment of which secures the regime from being
targeted by his network. In the words of the New Yorker (22 October
2001), the regime is "so weakened and frightened that it has brokered
its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what
amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to
overthrow it." As a result, it has been specifically U.S. interests,
rather than those of the Saudi establishment, that have come under
fire from such groups.
While the U.S. seems to have been aware for many years of the Saudi
establishment's involvement in funding Al-Qaeda, successive
administrations have deliberately allowed this to continue, motivated
by concern for oil profits as secured through U.S. hegemony over the
Saudi regime, whose 'stability'—meaning ongoing rule—must be preserved
at any cost. It appears that this stability is worth preserving even
if the cost be the lives of American soldiers and civilians, abroad
and at home.
Corporate elite interests, in other words, far outweigh alleged
concerns for American lives. A documented precedent for this sort of
policy is Al-Qaeda's bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, which as Richard Labeviere reports, did not interrupt the
Clinton administration's indirect support of bin Laden's network,
since "they figured the U.S. would gain more from it in the long run."
The same brand of considerations seem to have motivated the
continuation and promotion of U.S. ties with those responsible for
supporting Al-Qaeda even in the aftermath of 11th September — namely
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Simultaneously, it is also clear that U.S. intelligence had
anticipated Al-Qaeda's terrorist plans for 11th September (at least to
a general extent, but most probably to a highly specific degree), but
continued to facilitate and support—from behind-the-scenes through its
regional allies — the build-up to the implementation of those plans,
while ensuring the lack of preventive measures at home, both prior to
and on 11th September. The reason for this appears to be that those
attacks were about to occur at a fortuitous time for the Bush
administration, which was facing both a domestic and an international
crisis of legitimacy, accompanied by growing cracks in world order
under U.S. hegemony in the form of escalating world-wide dissent and
protest.
By allowing these terrorist acts to occur, and by apparently pushing a
few necessary buttons while closing a few important doors, thus
ensuring their occurrence, the Bush administration effectively
permitted and supported Al-Qaeda through its key allies in its 11th
September assault (whether the terrorist network knew it or not), thus
establishing the trigger so desperately needed to re-assert its power
politics world-wide.
Indeed, the measures taken by the Bush administration in the aftermath
of 11th September appear to have been specifically tailored to ensure
that the increasingly fatal cracks in world order that had begun to
appear both at home and abroad before 11th September, do not appear
again.
The domestic crackdown on basic civil rights, combined with the
demonisation of dissent, has come part and parcel with the granting of
unlimited war powers—lending the Bush administration a free hand to
embark on a new unlimited war against any regime that challenges U.S.
interests.
The protection of a stable dictatorship within Saudi Arabia is also an
integral part of this programme of hegemonic consolidation and
expansion. The Bush administration apparently feels that as long as
the Saudi establishment continues to pour protection money into
Al-Qaeda pockets, the required modicum of regional stability will be
maintained, thus protecting unimpeded U.S. access to Middle East oil
reserves. Whether or not this policy is viable is another matter,
although it seems to have 'worked' so far, which probably explains why
the Bush administration believes it can continue in this manner, at
least for some time further. [596]
Meanwhile, the scattered continued existence of Al-Qaeda plays a
functional role within world order, at least for the next few years.
The London Guardian noted this functional role played by Osama bin
Laden within the matrix of U.S. foreign policy objectives in an 18 th
September report:
"If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent
him. For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a
U.S. president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle
out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even
President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his
associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile
technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to
launch a crusade for good: the face behind the faceless terror...
[H]is usefulness to western governments lies in his power to terrify.
When billions of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue
states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are
liabilities." [597]
To consolidate and expand U.S. hegemony, and to fully counter its
Russian, Chinese and European rivals, a massive threat is required, to
establish domestic consensus on the unrelentingly interventionist
character of U.S. foreign policy in the new and unlimited "war on
terror."
The bogeyman of Osama bin Laden's international terrorist network thus
plays, in the view of the Bush administration, a functional role
within the matrix of U.S. plans to increasingly subject the world
order to its military, political, strategic, and economic influence.
This explains the Bush administration's systematic failure to
investigate known supporters of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan—and even Al-Qaeda cells operating within the borders of the
U.S. itself. Whether or not Al-Qaeda members, including bin Laden
himself, are aware of this is another matter.
Until Al-Qaeda loses this functional role within a U.S.-dominated
world order, this state of affairs is likely to continue. At the
least, the U.S. government has clearly adopted this array of policies
on the basis of a cold, but meticulous 'cost-benefit' analysis,
weighing up the potential gains and losses of the following possible
policies:
· Taking meaningful action against Al-Qaeda, while damaging U.S.
regional interests tied to allies who support bin Laden
· Allowing allies to continue their support of Al-Qaeda, and
refraining from action against it, in order to protect perceived U.S.
interests
The second policy appears to be the one currently adopted by the Bush
administration, for the reasons discussed above. It is a policy that
amounts, at the very least, to indirect complicity in the 11th
September attacks, through ongoing U.S. protection of leading allies
supporting those who carried out the attacks. On this basis, it is
evident that in the near future, on the pretext of targeting scattered
terrorist cells connected to Al-Qaeda, various countries around the
world that are of strategic value to the United States will fall
victim to Bush's 'new war' for U.S. hegemony.
The escalating and contrived 'clash of civilisations' that may result
from this cynical U.S. policy, and the corresponding chaos and
destruction, bear ominous implications for the future of humanity.
Indeed, the new pretexts are already being conjured up. President Bush
Jr. virtually declared war on any country deemed by the U.S. to be a
threat, in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, 29 th January
2002. Bush warned of "thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the
methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes," and openly
threatened an attack on Iran, Iraq and North Korea in particular. Both
the U.S. government and media have made concerted efforts to allege
some sort of connection between Al-Qaeda and the countries of Iran and
Iraq. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a
grave and growing danger. States like these and their terrorist allies
constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the
world." Bush added that: "The United States of America will not permit
the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's
most destructive weapons."
The horrid irony of these statements is clear in light of the
documentation presented here concerning the Bush administration's role
in the events of 11th September, its conscious use of massive terror
against the Afghan population, and the accompanying policies of
imperialism at home and abroad.
The Middle East and Central Asia together hold over two-thirds of the
world's reserves of oil and natural gas. After Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Iraq are respectively the second and third largest oil-producers in
the region. Both Iran and Iraq, in accordance with their local
interests, are fundamentally opposed to the U.S. drive to secure
unimpeded access to regional resources.
Iran, for instance, has been attempting to secure its own interests in
Afghanistan and Central Asia, thus coming into direct conflict with
regional U.S. interests, Iraq has for a decade now been tolerated only
because the U.S. has been unable to replace Saddam Hussein's regime
with a viable alternative. [598] In light of the results of the
apparently successful 'test case' provided by the war on Afghanistan,
the U.S. seems intent on attempting a replay in Iraq by eliminating
Saddam, and enlisting the opposition to establish a compliant new
regime. Similar plans may be in the pipeline for Iran.
As for North Korea, this country borders China, and is thus
strategically located in terms of longstanding U.S. policy planning.
China has long been viewed by U.S. policy planners as its principal
rival in north and east Asia. The military network being installed by
the United States in the wake of 11th September systematically
encircles China—Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, India,
the Philippines, and now Korea.
The Guardian has also commented on these developments and their
military-strategic context: "Every twist in the war on terrorism seems
to leave a new Pentagon outpost in the Asia-Pacific region, from the
former USSR to the Philippines. One of the lasting consequences of the
war could be what amounts to a military encirclement of China." In
explanation, the London daily cites the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense
Review warning ofthe danger that "a military competitor with a
formidable resource base will emerge in the region." The journal
recommended a U.S. policy that "places a premium on securing
additional access and infrastructure agreements."[599] The expansion
of the misnamed 'war on terror' is thus specifically tailored to
target regions of strategic and economic interest to the United
States, and thus to consolidate unrivalled U.S. hegemony in these
regions.
It is worth emphasising here that even the lowest possible level of
involvement on the part of the Bush administration fails to absolve
this administration of scandalous responsibility for the events of
11th September. At the very least, the facts on record demonstrate
with certainty that the U.S. government is fully aware that its
regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some others, have funded
and supported Al-Qaeda for years. Yet despite this, the U.S.
government has permitted this support to continue, actively
obstructing intelligence investigations into the matter, and funneling
U.S. aid to the same allies. This policy has continued with the
objective of maintaining these lucrative alliances, through which
regional U.S. economic and strategic interests are secured.
At the same time, the U.S. government has long been aware of the
threat posed by Al-Qaeda to U.S. national security, and in particular
was certainly aware that some sort of devastating attack by Al-Qaeda
on U.S. soil was imminent in the later half of 2001. Despite this, the
U.S. government refused to reverse its policy of maintaining regional
alliances with the principal supporters of Al-Qaeda, including the
funneling of financial and military aid—and continues to do the same,
even after the 11th September.
At the very least then, the facts on record demonstrate with certainty
an ongoing U.S. policy of wilful and reckless indifference to American
lives, motivated fundamentally by strategic and economic interests.
This policy has been relentlessly pursued, regardless of the dangers
to American lives, of which the U.S. policy-making establishment is
fully aware. This policy therefore amounts, even at the lowest
possible level of involvement, to deliberate if indirect complicity in
the 11th September attacks, on the part of the Bush administration.
Although it is the opinion of this author that the documentation
gathered strongly indicates the conscious complicity of the Bush
administration in the 11th September attacks, it should once again be
emphasised that this study does not aim to provide a conclusive or
exhaustive analysis. It is primarily intended to collate the
innumerable facts surrounding the events of 11th September, of which
the public is largely unaware, and clarify them with extensive
documentation.
These facts have simply not been addressed in an adequate fashion in
the media, and the conventional version of events officially espoused
by the Bush administration, and slavishly repeated by the media and
academia, fails to account for or explain them. Most commentators,
including supposed critics of U.S. policy, are content to arbitrarily
dismiss any discussion of the role of the U.S. government in 11th
September as irrelevant. But as this study demonstrates, the facts on
record are far too important in their implications to be dismissed by
anyone who is serious about understanding the events of 11th
September.
In the final analysis, then, this study points to a host of unanswered
questions and blatant anomalies that U.S. government, military and
intelligence agencies must be forced to answer through a public
inquiry. Such an inquiry is clearly a matter of the greatest urgency,
and must be demanded as such by all sectors of society. The U.S.
government's actions should be transparent, justifiable, and
reasonable. And in the event of a failure to meet these criteria, the
U.S. government should be accountable to the American people. This is
a public right, and an elementary aspect of democracy. Whether key
U.S. figures and institutions have been guilty of complicity or sheer
incompetence, the public has a right to know this is the least that
could be done in memory of those who died on 11th September. Thus, a
full-scale, independent public inquiry must be launched as soon as
possible. Unless this occurs, the truth of what happened on 11th
September – and thereafter – will remain indefinitely suppressed.
(Footnotes available at listed URL)
___________________________
Premise: Congress and the Media reflect society; Basically, we don't
want to think bad of ourselves, so we invest our beliefs in stories
that affirm our dignity, morality, decency, and honour;
_________________________________
US citizens are, as a rule, ingenious, kind, open, honest, and
generous.
They are also naive and try hard to see the best in all peoples and
all matters. Those are civilized character traits, but especially the
latter can easily turn into defects unless they are tempered by
knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. It is in trying to strike the
right balance between those complementary traits, what the pioneers so
well understood as the necessary hardheaded practical vision needed to
face the problems, difficulties, and challenges of life, that the US
now collectively seems to have moved away from its own centre of
gravity.
Content and argument has been replaced by attitude and parading.
Wisdom by wisecracking. Temperance by gluttony. Discipline and
self-discipline by spoilt and bratty self-indulgence. Hardheaded
vision by nostalgia and the propagation of pleasant social myths etc.
All that has come about as a consequence of two major sociel
developments. First, the unparallelled general wellfare of the US
after WWII, the rise of modern consumerism, and, second, the rise of
the modern media culture which entertains rather than informs.
The "collective mind" of the US (if such a "thing" could be said to
exist) is on subconcious level at least partly aware that something is
very wrong with the way society has turned out, of which there is also
widespread denial and refusal to face facts, naturally. The symptoms
of that are visible all around. The nostalgic longing for times of the
past where the country was "together" and the nation unified. The
longing for war (at least apparant since 9/11). The longing for strong
government and an end to fractious debate and uncertainty. The longing
for a fundamentalist religious salvation. The turning away by large
sections of the population from science and enlightenment. The
inability to unite in order to deal with key social and environmental
problems. The list could go on and on.
All these symptoms reveal a much deeper and basic common cause. But
what might that be? Well, the most direct way of answering this
question is to say that the US has put all of its eggs in one basket.
Basically, there is an agreement that the free enterprise system,
known as Capitalism, is the only proper way to organize society.
Naturally, Capitalism, especially the unbridled, unchecked,
unsupervised kind common in the US, inevitably leads to grave social
problems and contradictions. When society is unable to deal
effectively and humanely with the problems thrown up by its own basic
organization, it has lost its ability to renew itself and is headed
for stagnation, social strife, war, and possibly even disintegration.
-- Nes
______________________________
The U.S.A. is now a corporate socialist state run by legalized
bribery.
The average citizen is too busy with TV and sports to bother noticing.
The educational system has been carefully truncated to eliminate
civics and history and been replaced by formulated distortions
promoted by the religious right and politically inclined fascists.
Anyone earning less that $60,000 who votes Republican is voting to
screw himself.
I can't help but see that the current crisis of legitimacy and justice
of the Bush Inc. trampling our Constitution is a natural legacy of
over fifty years of US Foreign Policy leading the world in the use of
stark, brutal terror to interfere in the domestic affairs of over 80
Nations, resulting in the death of at least 6 million people in order
to protect the sanctity of our 'Free, American' way of life; The
hypocrisy, moral ambivalence and willful ignorance of murder and
mayhem committed in our name, seem to have led to this catastrophe we
now face; When a people make vital accomodation to barbarism, even
when it's cleverly cloaked under the rubric of the fantastic invention
of "enlightened humanitarian liberation", the moral, psychological and
ideological consequences to ourselves and our way of life cannot be
deferred indefinately; The crisis before us is nothing less than a
full-blown psychotic episode affecting our society and Federal
Government;
I sure hope you can look at these issues objectively, Josh, and
realize how close we are to being overwhelmed by the totalitarianism
now being being established at all levels of our Government;
Best wishes, truth and light;
skye
Diogenes Benders
>
> Maybe, but I really wouldn't know. Although I do join in from time to time,
> for the most part I stopped reading him closely when he harangued me
> endlessly about how I wasn't a surrealist, and - despite my attempt to
> present a reasonable discourse on why I felt (in fact "knew") that I was, he
> sidestepped (as usual) any rational conversation and just kept insisting he
> knew more about myself and my work than I did!
So what? It's a well known fact that people are unreliable when they have to
judge themselves. Surrealism isn't even a catagory in literature. It's a
catagory in painting, and you paint like a dead monkey. You are, therefore,
absolutely not a surrealist.
M.H.Benders
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.kannibaal.nl/
De enige echt gezellige literaire website op het net
http://www.kannibaal.nl/nklpfaq.htm
De enige officiele FAQ voor de nieuwsgroep NKLP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Diogenes Benders
> but I am constantly amazed by how seriously you all seem to take
> him. It started with the veggies, and the reactions he got to a - fairly
> entertaining - joke beggared belief.
I still can't believe that they think onions are vegetables in the USA. They
are
clearly meant to be spiceners by the Creator, and therefore they clearly
should be classified as herbs.
>
> and no, I don't agree with his stance on onions.
Why not?
>
> I'd be very surprised if any of the Europeans disagree with 90% of what
> he says;
So far most of them are on my side. Sheard, Ross, Vriezen, etc, all the
people who are more than a bit serious about poetry.
>
> and creatively; I very much enjoy and respect his work.
There is no difference.
>
> And no, I don't give a fuck who started it. I work in a school, and
> would like you BOTH to stop.
Sorry, but I refuse to let the USA dominate this forum with cheap
impressionism.
Thomas Dillion
"Diogenes Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D1BA62B...@chello.nl...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe, but I really wouldn't know. Although I do join in from time to
time,
> > for the most part I stopped reading him closely when he harangued me
> > endlessly about how I wasn't a surrealist, and - despite my attempt to
> > present a reasonable discourse on why I felt (in fact "knew") that I
was, he
> > sidestepped (as usual) any rational conversation and just kept insisting
he
> > knew more about myself and my work than I did!
>
> So what? It's a well known fact that people are unreliable when they have
to
> judge themselves. Surrealism isn't even a catagory in literature. It's a
> catagory in painting, and you paint like a dead monkey. You are,
therefore,
> absolutely not a surrealist.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
> --
surrealism 1. art movement, an early 20th century movement in art and
LITERATURE that tried to represent the subconscious mind by creating
fantastic imagery and juxtaposing elements that seem to contradict each
other. (Encarta World English Dictionary)
IMO, Dale's work qualifies, from what I've seen here,
Thomas
Diogenes Benders
>
> surrealism 1. art movement, an early 20th century movement in art and
> LITERATURE that tried to represent the subconscious mind by creating
> fantastic imagery and juxtaposing elements that seem to contradict each
> other. (Encarta World English Dictionary)
Then I'd figure you will have no problems mentioning 20 surrealist poets from
that time. Or 20 surrealist writers.
As far as the definition itself is concerned, it in no way describes the work of
Dale Houstman. The subconscious mind tends to work in a dreamy sort of way and
'dreamy' isn't a qualification that springs to mind when I read his poetry. His
poems are far too constructed, rational and absurd to come even close to the
hygienic realm of dream interpretation which is surrealism, even though he is
quite as much a clueless idealist and boring (because predictable) writer as
Breton.
M.H.Benders
--
Thomas Dillion
> Thomas Dillion wrote:
>
> >
> > surrealism 1. art movement, an early 20th century movement in art and
> > LITERATURE that tried to represent the subconscious mind by creating
> > fantastic imagery and juxtaposing elements that seem to contradict each
> > other. (Encarta World English Dictionary)
>
> Then I'd figure you will have no problems mentioning 20 surrealist poets
from
> that time. Or 20 surrealist writers.
No I can't, but then it's not an area I've bothered with much. My point was
merely that surrealism did cover works of literature, and would do even if
there were no poets or writers employing that style.
>
> As far as the definition itself is concerned, it in no way describes the
work of
> Dale Houstman. The subconscious mind tends to work in a dreamy sort of way
and
> 'dreamy' isn't a qualification that springs to mind when I read his
poetry. His
> poems are far too constructed, rational and absurd to come even close to
the
> hygienic realm of dream interpretation which is surrealism, even though he
is
> quite as much a clueless idealist and boring (because predictable) writer
as
> Breton.
>
Dali, whose work I love, created surreal images using structured and
rational frameworks to support his ideas. I don't think order and surrealism
are mutually exclusive, as dreams usually contain many elements of
'normality'
Thomas
Diogenes Benders
>
> Simultaneously, it is also clear that U.S. intelligence had
> anticipated Al-Qaeda's terrorist plans for 11th September (at least to
> a general extent, but most probably to a highly specific degree),
Not only 'anticipated'. These sort of things _always_ happen when the
economy threatens to go into a recession. Some drama scenario is pulled out
of a closet somewhere, and with high level CIA involvement nobody knows who
or where, and even if Bin Laden did it Bin Laden is a CIA trainee.
The event is subsequently eagerly used to highly pump up the nationalistic
sentiments, the war machine, the diplomacy machine (btw have you heard about
our JSF airplanes) and so on. And the bourgouise feel really happy because
they can endlessly enjoy their own moral superiority in this new 'war to
defend freedom' - to a neutral observer they all look like a bunch of
fruitcakes.
M.H.Benders
Diogenes Benders
>
> > Then I'd figure you will have no problems mentioning 20 surrealist poets
> from
> > that time. Or 20 surrealist writers.
>
> No I can't, but then it's not an area I've bothered with much. My point was
> merely that surrealism did cover works of literature, and would do even if
> there were no poets or writers employing that style.
Not much of a 'movement' then, is it? I can think of maybe 2 'surrealist'
writers and 2 poets, who were all just classified as such by people that govern
such fashion movements. In fact, surrealism is an impossibility in literature.
Or let's just hope so - surrealist painters produced the biggest heaps of
garbage in all the history of painting. Only Ernst was somewhat interesting in
the genre.
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
***In article <B940F45B.5058%amcn...@insightbb.com>, Art says...
***>
***>in article dOyS8.643656$og1.1...@news.easynews.com, Alan (Ursus
Major) at
***>ur...@walkington.org wrote on 6/27/02 2:04 AM:
***>[snip]
***>
***>>
***>> We can protect ourselves and our families from home invasion
with a gun. We
***>> cannot change the political makeup of this country with a gun.
***>
***>Repeat after me: "This is the most naive statement imaginable."
***>
***>---
***>Art
***
***christ in the everglades, art and i agree on something.
***
***i'm fairly sure they'll be ice skating in hell this evening.
***
***
***love and kisses,
***
***j r sherman
***
***------------------------------------------------------------------
***"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
***Of sprites and goblins."
***------------------------------------------------------------------
Before or after we have ice cream?
Art McNutt
wrote on 6/27/02 5:57 PM:
>
> i'm fairly sure they'll be ice skating in hell this evening.
>
That's nothin', Sherm. We even agree on /this/.
---
Art
Art McNutt
at thomas....@ntlworld.com wrote on 6/27/02 8:02 PM:
[snip]
> Dali, whose work I love, created surreal images using structured and
> rational frameworks to support his ideas. I don't think order and surrealism
> are mutually exclusive, as dreams usually contain many elements of
> 'normality'
Dali was not a true Surrealist--actually he was only nominally so--hence the
apparent contradictions in style.
The works of Miro exhibit all the characteristics of Surrealism. He is the
father of the Surrealist School of painting. Dali /marketed/ himself,
however, and did a damn fine job, too. Thus the popular miss-assigned
association.
Just a word up from your Uncle Art.
---
Art
j r sherman
what? that the current un-elected president is fervently reading Mein Kampf,
taking notes, and sighing with wistful desire and longing every time he finishes
a chapter?
for god sakes, that's ridiculous and absurd! i'm getting completely hysterical
here!
GDub doesn't even know HOW to read!
(America is SAVED!)
Zinc
message news:3d1e4d01...@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
> wrote:
>
> ***"Joy Yourcenar" <pene...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in message
> ***
> ***> The apathy of people like you and Dennis is a luxury you can
> ***> can afford because you're not in a position to have to pay for
> ***
> ***You may have meant Josh. Dennis doesn't seem to be the least bit
> ***even overwhelmed, as I do occasionally.
> ***
> ***
>
>
> Not confuse incoherence with a lack of apathy.
I always confuse incoherence with something, otherwise it's simply not what it
is. And while on that note: the question has recently arisen "Is Josh Josh?"
Well, then I'm just as confused and incoherent as ever because I don't know if
there was an implication in the - inferred - correction I erroneously offered.
Oh well, time will tell I suppose.
>
> Joy
>
>
> Joy Yourcenar
> Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
> icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
>
Art McNutt
wrote on 6/27/02 10:05 PM:
> In article <B9413C8A.5131%amcn...@insightbb.com>, Art says...
>>
>> in article afg58...@drn.newsguy.com, j r sherman at jr...@earthlink.net
>> wrote on 6/27/02 5:57 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> i'm fairly sure they'll be ice skating in hell this evening.
>>>
>>
>> That's nothin', Sherm. We even agree on /this/.
>
>
> what? that the current un-elected president is fervently reading Mein Kampf,
> taking notes, and sighing with wistful desire and longing every time he
> finishes
> a chapter?
Hey, Cochise--/I/ don't even think /that/ about /FDR/ for crying out loud.
And we know /all/ about his list of crimes and assaults on the Constitution.
> for god sakes, that's ridiculous and absurd! i'm getting completely hysterical
> here!
>
> GDub doesn't even know HOW to read!
Perhaps not, but Terry McAuliffe knows how to read a poll.
>
> (America is SAVED!)
Yes, every time.
---
Art
Alan (Ursus Major)
news:affvp...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <ODJS8.195388$je.19...@news.easynews.com>, "Alan says...
> >
> >Do not confuse the rabid rantings of these doom-sayers with lack of
apathy,
> >either. Most of these people are simply posturing for the amusement of
> >themselves and their audience.
>
> and you're doing this out of some deeper motives? do remember, alan,
you're
> posting here along with the Hystericals, being just as "hysterical" in
your
> denial that there's anything wrong going on,
j r, are you blind or just stupid?
Don't bother responding to posts if you won't read them in the first place.
I told you how I felt about these infringements on our civil rights, it just
doesn't suit your trivial purposes to acknowledge it.
Don't bother taking any first-aid classes, j r . When the blood starts
spurting you'll be running around in tiny little circles shouting "Somebody
do something". Folks who give a shit are doing things now, j r. Not having
hissy-fits.
<snip>
> am amused that you think the various complaints posted here about the
actions
> of our un-elected administration appears, to you, as "crazy". i think your
> wholesale denial of what's going on strikes me as a little odd.
Yep, you're stupid, no other possibility.
The complaints are not crazy, and I have denied nothing. I did not /say/
the complaints were crazy. I did not /imply/ the complaints were crazy. I
/did/ say the the terms in which you couch your complaints trivialize both
the complaint and the complainant. They portray /you and your associates/ as
crazies. To effect a change, you have to convience a bunch of frightened
neighbors that cedeing freedoms now for supposed safety means those freedoms
are gone forever. Sorta like selling your inheritance for a pot of gruel.
I will repeat what I said before. The whining sniveling rantings of
doomsayers like you, j r, simply inhibit any progress towards sanity. The
people whom sane arguments might convince, look at the driveling of freaks
like you and think anything /he/ says gotta be /wrong/. Can't blame 'em
either.
If you actually cared, you'd be making an effort to change things, not
issuing forth these puling ullulations.
Or perhaps you're just trolling - amusing yourself - and these infractions
against our liberties just provide a tool to assist you in your mental
masturbation. In any case, it's fucking idots like /you/ that are
endangering /my/ liberties. Because, j r, you don't really give a shit, do
you? All talk, no walk. Fuck off.
Alan Walkington
(y tu madre tambien)
Dale Houstman
"Art McNutt" <amcn...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:B9413FB6.5134%amcn...@insightbb.com...
> in article RAOS8.840$J_3.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net, Thomas Dillion
> at thomas....@ntlworld.com wrote on 6/27/02 8:02 PM:
>
> [snip]
> > Dali, whose work I love, created surreal images using structured and
> > rational frameworks to support his ideas. I don't think order and
surrealism
> > are mutually exclusive, as dreams usually contain many elements of
> > 'normality'
>
> Dali was not a true Surrealist--actually he was only nominally so--hence
the
> apparent contradictions in style.
Although Dali later became a self-promoting Catholic Royalist, and was
rejected by the surrealists (particularly Breton who actually tried
repeatedly to come to an understanding with Dali), he was - in fact - a
"true" surrealist for some time, often pushing the group into political
provocations and creating some real and abiding surrealist work. So your
statement isn't entirely correct.
>
> The works of Miro exhibit all the characteristics of Surrealism. He is the
> father of the Surrealist School of painting. Dali /marketed/ himself,
> however, and did a damn fine job, too. Thus the popular miss-assigned
> association.
>
I don't think Miro can be singled out as the "father" of the Surrealist
"school of painting, although he is quite interesting. There are just too
many other candidates for that position, and ones who worked closer with
Breton; Tanguy, Magritte, Ernst, Arp, etc.
dmh
Maura2
al cap invention ,
smoes abounded like chickens ,but magicly turninto what ever you wanted
,
like a chimera of tent preachers ,
ready ,come to papa ,
your the smoes and are soon turned into what
the tv scripture bouncer wishes for
saving folks runs into money , but its just for the tv preacher ,
Alan (Ursus Major)
in message news:B940F45B.5058%amcn...@insightbb.com...
Is that right, McNutt?
Which part is naive, that we can protect ourselves at home, or that we can't
change the country with a gun?
1) I can protect myself and my family from criminals like you. If you
don't believe me, you piece of shit, just bring yourself and your fucked-up
friends aboard. I will have you full of holes before you get the second
step inside. If I miss, my wife will dump five loads of birdshot into you.
If I get you outside in the yard, I'll drag you in. If you aren't armed,
don't worry. I can wrap your dead cold hand around a butcher knife. Deadly
force /is allowed/ in Idaho.
The only places I /can't/ protect myself and my family are where sorry
septic scums like you have told me you'll throw me in jail just for thinking
about it. Funny, most of those places are where I need that protection the
most. Fuck naive, and fuck you too.
Or do you think that I'm talking about standing off the cops or some
three-letter agency? What a dreary unimaginative ass licker /you/ turned out
to be. That doesn't even deserve an answer. Fuck naive and fuck you too.
2) Or do you mean that I'm naive knowing that we /can't/ change our country
with guns? Even /you/ don't seem that stupid, but apparently you are,
asswipe.
How many of these puling noisy cowards on this ng, barfing their hysterical
diarrhea in the faces of anyone who bothers to read it, how many do /you/
think would bring their deer rifles out against the Bradleys? Shit, how
many of these vegetarian pussies even /have/ deer rifles. Their mama's told
them that BB Guns were /bad/ and that /cap/ guns provoked violence, and that
killing ducks, rabbits, deer to eat was /murder/. You California Cowards
quiver in the corner of your bedroom while streetscum break into your
million dollar hovels and rape your sons (some perverts actualy rape the
wives and daughters, imagine)? You draft dodging cowards /protect/
yourselves? You who display your white feathers so proudly? Nah ... you
want /me/, whom you despise, to charge the guns. Then if by some fucking
miracle I survive, you can throw /me/ in jail for breaking your fucking
laws. Fuck naive, and fuck you too.
Listen good, you unbelievable ass-licking wimp. You go back to knocking the
cops who put /their/ lives on the line ever fucking day you're allowed to
live. You know, those /stupid/ guys who risk getting blown away every time
they stop a drunk driver or confront a wife-beater in his own home. Don't
tell me about /naive/ and don't talk to me about protecting myself. You
don't know /shit/, scum sucker, even if you /is/ shit.
I /know/ you're too busy kissing the ass of your hero on this NG to even
/think/ of doing something useful, but if you change what passes for a mind
in a simple bottom feeding species such as you, just tell whoever is reading
this for you to continue on.
If it's possible for you to get three sane, simple, and logical words out of
that quivering hole you sometimes use for a mouth, do what I do: call local
radio and TV talk shows. If it's possible for you to stop your suck-up
posturing long enough to let go of your cock and do something useful, do
what I do: write to your local newspapers and your congressmen.
Repeat this until it actually makes an impression on that tablespoon of
undifferentiated tissue impermenantly attached to the top of your spinal
cord:
"I will use logic and common sense to convince rightfully frightened people
/not/ to cede their personal freedoms for imagined safety. I will not
antagonize the people I am trying to convince".
"/I will not/ trivialize this problem or marginalize those of us who
actually /care/ about what's happening by referring to the 'unelected'
president, the 'Gestapo' justice department, the 'criminal' ATF, the 'secret
police' and other such useless emotionally loaded phrases."
If you can't do something useful, then crawl back under your bed and keep on
jacking off. You can fantasize about black helicopters and blue helmets and
getting buggered by the FBI, ATF, INS, DOD, NSA, NRO, NASA, FEMA, NRA, ARC,
and BSofA.
Fuck naive, and fuck you.
(y tu madre tambien).
Alan Walkington
Idaho Falls, ID
Michael Cook
It is disheartening to watch as people I have come to admire and respect go
to extremes over semantics. The Constitution guarantees the man woman and
child the "inalienable" right to live for his/her own sake so long as he or
she does not hinder another from doing the same, it is a delicate balance.
Who knows, maybe some day?
Take care my friends
mdc
Alan (Ursus Major)
in message news:B940F45B.5058%amcn...@insightbb.com...
> in article dOyS8.643656$og1.1...@news.easynews.com, Alan (Ursus Major)
at
> ur...@walkington.org wrote on 6/27/02 2:04 AM:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > We can protect ourselves and our families from home invasion with a gun.
We
> > cannot change the political makeup of this country with a gun.
>
> Repeat after me: "This is the most naive statement imaginable."
Is that right, McNutt?
Which part is naive, that we can protect ourselves at home, or that we can't
change the country with a gun?
1) I can protect myself and my family from criminals like you. If you
don't believe me, you house breaking piece of shit, just bring yourself and
your fucked-up friends aboard. I will have you full of holes before you get
the second step inside. If I miss, my wife will dump five loads of birdshot
into you. If I get you outside in the yard, I'll drag you in. If you
aren't armed, don't worry. I can spare a butcher knife for each of you.
Deadly force /is allowed/ in Idaho.
The only places I /can't/ protect myself are where sorry septic scums like
you have told me you'll throw me in jail just for thinking about it. Funny,
most of those places are where I need that protection the most. Fuck naive,
and fuck you too.
Or do you think that I'm talking about standing off the cops or some
three-letter agency? What a dreary unimaginative ass licker /you/ turned out
to be. That doesn't even deserve an answer. Fuck naive and fuck you too.
2) Or do you mean that I'm naive knowing that we /can't/ change our country
with guns? Even /you/ don't seem that stupid, but apparently you are,
asswipe.
How many of these puling noisy cowards on this ng, barfing their hysterical
diarrhea in the faces of anyone who bothers to read it, how many do /you/
think would bring their deer rifles out against the Bradleys? Shit, how
many of these vegetarian pussies even /have/ deer rifles. Their mama's told
them that BB Guns were /bad/ and that /cap/ gun provoked violence, that
killing ducks, rabbits, deer to eat was /murder/. You California cowards
quiver in the corner while streetscum break into your million dollar hovels
and rape your sons (some perverts actuall rape the wives and daughters,
imagine)? You draft dodging cowards /protect/ yourselves? Nah ... you want
/me/ to charge the guns. Then if by some fucking miracle I survive, you can
throw /me/ in jail for breaking your fucking laws. Fuck naive, and fuck you
too.
Listen good, you unbelievable ass-licking wimp. You go back to knocking the
cops who put /their/ lives on the line ever fucking day you're allowed to
live. Don't tell me about /naive/ and don't talk to me about protecting
myself. You don't /know/ shit, even if you /is/ shit, you fucking mouthy
coward.
If it's possible for you to get three sane, simple, and logical words out of
that quivering hole you sometimes use for a mouth, do what I do: call local
radio and TV talk shows. If it's possible for you to stop your suck-up
posturing long enough to let go of your cock and do something useful, do
what I do: write to your local newspapers and your congressmen.
I /know/ you're too busy kissing the ass of your hero on this NG to even
/think/ of doing something useful, but if you change what passes for a mind
in a simple bottom feeding species such as you, just tell whoever is reading
this for you to continue on.
Repeat this until it actually makes an impression on that tablespoon of
undifferentiated tissue impermenantly attached to the top of your spinal
cord.
"I will use logic and common sense to convince rightfully frightened people
/not/ to cede their personal freedoms for imagined safety. I will not
antagonize the people I am trying to convince".
"/I will not/ trivialize this problem or marginalize those of us who
actually /care/ about what's happening by referring to the 'unelected'
president, the Gestapo justice department, and other such useless loaded
phrases."
If you can't do something useful, then crawl back under your bed and keep on
jacking off. You can fantasize about black helicopters and blue helmets and
the FBI, ATF, INS, DOD, NSA, NRO, NASA, FEMA, ARC, and BSA coming to get
you.
Fuck naive, and fuck you too
(y tu madre tambien).
Alan Walkington
Idaho Falls, ID
>
> ---
> Art
>
Art McNutt
dm...@citilink.com wrote on 6/28/02 12:13 AM:
[snip]
> I don't think Miro can be singled out as the "father" of the Surrealist
> "school of painting, although he is quite interesting. There are just too
> many other candidates for that position, and ones who worked closer with
> Breton; Tanguy, Magritte, Ernst, Arp, etc.
>
By Golly, I overstated that, I did. Consider that retracted. An
overstatement passed along to me in Art in the Dark, that I had no business
passing along any farther. Though the Spanish Surrealists were quite
influential.
There aren't a one of 'em "interesting" to me personally, though I love
Dali's manic devotion to, to...well, to Dali. I appreciate his films far
more than his paintings.
---
Art
Art McNutt
ur...@walkington.org wrote on 6/28/02 12:48 AM:
> "Art McNutt" <amcn...@insightbb.com> vomited the following foul effluent
> in message news:B940F45B.5058%amcn...@insightbb.com...
>> in article dOyS8.643656$og1.1...@news.easynews.com, Alan (Ursus Major)
> at
>> ur...@walkington.org wrote on 6/27/02 2:04 AM:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> We can protect ourselves and our families from home invasion with a gun.
> We
>>> cannot change the political makeup of this country with a gun.
>>
>> Repeat after me: "This is the most naive statement imaginable."
>
> Is that right, McNutt?
>
> Which part is naive, that we can protect ourselves at home, or that we can't
> change the country with a gun?
Yes.
>
> 1) I can protect myself and my family from criminals like you. If you
> don't believe me, you piece of shit, just bring yourself and your fucked-up
> friends aboard. I will have you full of holes before you get the second
> step inside. If I miss, my wife will dump five loads of birdshot into you.
> If I get you outside in the yard, I'll drag you in. If you aren't armed,
> don't worry. I can wrap your dead cold hand around a butcher knife. Deadly
> force /is allowed/ in Idaho.
Why would I want to go to Idaho, Cochise? It's bad enough I live in
Illinois.
>
> The only places I /can't/ protect myself and my family are where sorry
> septic scums like you have told me you'll throw me in jail just for thinking
> about it. Funny, most of those places are where I need that protection the
> most. Fuck naive, and fuck you too.
Fair enough. But, you are wrong seven ways from Sunday if you think a gun
makes you "safe." It is a useful tool, however.
>
> Or do you think that I'm talking about standing off the cops or some
> three-letter agency? What a dreary unimaginative ass licker /you/ turned out
> to be. That doesn't even deserve an answer. Fuck naive and fuck you too.
>
> 2) Or do you mean that I'm naive knowing that we /can't/ change our country
> with guns? Even /you/ don't seem that stupid, but apparently you are,
> asswipe.
>
> How many of these puling noisy cowards on this ng, barfing their hysterical
> diarrhea in the faces of anyone who bothers to read it, how many do /you/
> think would bring their deer rifles out against the Bradleys? Shit, how
> many of these vegetarian pussies even /have/ deer rifles. Their mama's told
> them that BB Guns were /bad/ and that /cap/ guns provoked violence, and that
> killing ducks, rabbits, deer to eat was /murder/. You California Cowards
> quiver in the corner of your bedroom while streetscum break into your
> million dollar hovels and rape your sons (some perverts actualy rape the
> wives and daughters, imagine)? You draft dodging cowards /protect/
> yourselves?
Me, I chased my draft board around for a year. They kept running away from
me.
> You who display your white feathers so proudly? Nah ... you
> want /me/, whom you despise, to charge the guns. Then if by some fucking
> miracle I survive, you can throw /me/ in jail for breaking your fucking
> laws. Fuck naive, and fuck you too.
>
> Listen good, you unbelievable ass-licking wimp. You go back to knocking the
> cops who put /their/ lives on the line ever fucking day you're allowed to
> live. You know, those /stupid/ guys who risk getting blown away every time
> they stop a drunk driver or confront a wife-beater in his own home. Don't
> tell me about /naive/ and don't talk to me about protecting myself. You
> don't know /shit/, scum sucker, even if you /is/ shit.
Cops have an impossible job--I'd like to relieve them of the burden.
>
> I /know/ you're too busy kissing the ass of your hero on this NG
Hey, Sherm and I are just friends, okay?
> to even
> /think/ of doing something useful, but if you change what passes for a mind
> in a simple bottom feeding species such as you, just tell whoever is reading
> this for you to continue on.
>
> If it's possible for you to get three sane, simple, and logical words out of
> that quivering hole you sometimes use for a mouth, do what I do: call local
> radio and TV talk shows. If it's possible for you to stop your suck-up
> posturing long enough to let go of your cock and do something useful, do
> what I do: write to your local newspapers and your congressmen.
Nah. I used to help get them elected. A whole gaggle of them, too. Worked
for an ambitious bastard who's pretty close to owning the whole state these
days. Writing the newspaper and the congressman is better than
nothing--just. Voting is better still. Knocking on doors for the other guy
is better yet. But only donating money is gonna get results. MIFO as opposed
to GIGO. If somebody calls you with a phone poll, this is perhaps the best,
most cost efficient way to influence politics. They take note of letters to
the editors (hell, Legislative Leadership has the staff /write/ 'em from the
State House for papers all across the state...if ya ever noted, the Paper
doesn't /require/ that the letters be written by someone living in the
coverage area). Yes, they take note of those, and letters from constituents,
but they /listen/ to what the polls have to say.
>
> Repeat this until it actually makes an impression on that tablespoon of
> undifferentiated tissue impermenantly attached to the top of your spinal
> cord:
>
> "I will use logic and common sense to convince rightfully frightened people
> /not/ to cede their personal freedoms for imagined safety. I will not
> antagonize the people I am trying to convince".
Truly, Alan, I wasn't trying to antagonize you, nor did I perceive that I
was attacking /you/. Only what I considered to be your misstatement.
>
> "/I will not/ trivialize this problem or marginalize those of us who
> actually /care/ about what's happening by referring to the 'unelected'
> president, the 'Gestapo' justice department, the 'criminal' ATF, the 'secret
> police' and other such useless emotionally loaded phrases."
>
> If you can't do something useful, then crawl back under your bed and keep on
> jacking off. You can fantasize about black helicopters and blue helmets and
> getting buggered by the FBI, ATF, INS, DOD, NSA, NRO, NASA, FEMA, NRA, ARC,
> and BSofA.
>
> Fuck naive, and fuck you.
> (y tu madre tambien).
>
> Alan Walkington
> Idaho Falls, ID
>
Okay, you probably feel better now. Let me state this differently so you
don't take personal affront this time:
Your idea/concept is naive if you think your guns are a safeguard against
invasion, even of your home. Most "busts" by police teams are against guys
and gals packed and loaded to the teeth and they /always/ answer the
doorbell with one in hand (Do you?). A rabbit hole is better protection than
a home because /it/ has an escape tunnel.
Okay, most of these guys and gals aren't the brightest, but they do show up
some problems inherent in defending the home.
However, as far as a foreign invasion goes, a deer rifle can be a means of
procuring an RPG, so, in a way, it /can/ be useful against a T-80.
Mostly, what I was pointing to was the second part of your statement--that
guns cannot change the political makeup of the country. There was a Civil
War here, IIRC, and something on the order of 1.75 million men changed the
political makeup of this country /with guns/. But, this isn't necessarily
the only way. I was thinking Huey Long and and Garfield and Kennedy and
Martin Luther King and, well, I'm just pointing out that the gun has changed
the political makeup of this country many times. In a final way voting
cannot touch. Look at other countries and you'll see we're practically
virgins in this regard.
Guns always can change the political makeup of any country. Period. Before
that is was swords.
BTW, I started shooting when I was seven. My first gun was given to me when
I was 9. Never had the targets shoot back at me, though, so I don't know how
/good/ I am with one.
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
You could (if you wanted to) call Escher and Dali "scifi" painters
(Dali also fiddled with photography), since they knew the rules and
bent hell out of them, as do scifi illustrators routinely.
Surrealists tended simply to throw the rules away.
Throw away enough rules in "literature," and you can't read the
squiggles any more, but Joyce and Woolfe approach it.
Unless we must distinguish between Surrealism and Dadaism. I
don't bother.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
The moving cursor writes, and having writ,
blinks on.
http://scrawlmark.net
Alan (Ursus Major)
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:affe3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <dOyS8.643656$og1.1...@news.easynews.com>, "Alan says...
>
<snip>
>
> >I refuse to
> >rant and rave like a lunatic (however harsh a mistress she may be).
>
> what the fuck do you think you're doing now?
>
Sherman, that was neither a rave nor a rant, merely a true statement.
Something, it appears, with which you have little familiarity.
> and to emphasize what Ms. Yourcenar said earlier, of course you think we
> hystericals are being hysterical, you're not in the line of fire (and
neither am
> i). you're nice and safe and male and not-Arabic and probably not even
swarthy.
> you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
>
Those who /care/ have to convince a bunch of legitimately frightened
citizens that they must not give up their rights for an illusion of safety.
Listening to the effluent from blithering assholes like you just frightens
those citizens further and makes our jobs harder.
You 'hystericals' are making yourself as much a part of the problem as those
on the radical right. You reduce yourselves to mewling idiots
finger-fucking each other in impotent daisy-chains. No one pays serious
attention to what you say, only to how you say it. By associating your
senseless yammers with the problems the rest of us want to actually /solve/,
you trivialize the problems and marginalize the efforts of all who /really/
care.
You appear to have the intelligence to /know/ that what I am saying is fact,
not fantasy. Not that I think you /care/, though. I'm sure you will
continue with your infantile fits ... just because they amuse you.
But if you think that you and I are not in the line of fire, then it is you
who are hopelessly naive. Every liberty lost to the least, is lost to all.
Ms. Yourcenar is not in the line of fire because she is sitting up in
Canada. It's only a matter of time and place, Sherman.
>
> anyway, to be helpful, i have re-written the pledge of allegiance so that
it
> can't offend anyone, attend:
>
I am not the first to notice that your idea of amusement is pathetic.
> "I pledge allegiance, to j r sherman, who lives in the United States of
America,
> and to all his vices, for which he lies, one, or more, under he, quite
> delectable, with libertines and ice cream for all."
>
>
> now who could be offended by that?
>
Try sticking /your/ name in this one, Sherman, and get rid of that white
feather you so proudly display.
"I, Alan Walkington, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ... "
Thomas Dillion
"Michael Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:bXSS8.10875$t%5.45...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
I've often wondered if there was any real chance of reducing the gun situ.
in USA, where to us (UK- I can't speak for the rest of Europe, or the world)
it seems like madness- 9yr old kids shooting each other in playgrounds etc..
After reading this thread (talk about exposed nerves), I see the for/against
are irreconcilable.
good luck,
Thomas
-Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe, but I really wouldn't know. Although I do join in from time to time,
> > for the most part I stopped reading him closely when he harangued me
> > endlessly about how I wasn't a surrealist, and - despite my attempt to
> > present a reasonable discourse on why I felt (in fact "knew") that I was, he
> > sidestepped (as usual) any rational conversation and just kept insisting he
> > knew more about myself and my work than I did!
>
> So what? It's a well known fact that people are unreliable when they have to
> judge themselves.
Thus "con's sense" doth make cowards of us all.
Defender Benders here confesses that /he/ is unreliable when
judging himself, and that is all. Of cuss, since /he/ is "human,"
the reliable are not, and deserve no human consideration.
Flown into any good buildings, lately?
> Surrealism isn't even a catagory in literature. It's a
> catagory in painting, and you paint like a dead monkey. You are, therefore,
> absolutely not a surrealist.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.kannibaal.nl/
> De enige echt gezellige literaire website op het net
> http://www.kannibaal.nl/nklpfaq.htm
> De enige officiele FAQ voor de nieuwsgroep NKLP
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Thomas Dillion wrote:
>
> >
> > surrealism 1. art movement, an early 20th century movement in art and
> > LITERATURE that tried to represent the subconscious mind by creating
> > fantastic imagery and juxtaposing elements that seem to contradict each
> > other. (Encarta World English Dictionary)
>
> Then I'd figure you will have no problems mentioning 20 surrealist poets from
> that time. Or 20 surrealist writers.
>
> As far as the definition itself is concerned, it in no way describes the work of
> Dale Houstman. The subconscious mind tends to work in a dreamy sort of way and
> 'dreamy' isn't a qualification that springs to mind when I read his poetry. His
> poems are far too constructed, rational and absurd to come even close to the
> hygienic realm of dream interpretation which is surrealism, even though he is
> quite as much a clueless idealist and boring (because predictable) writer as
> Breton.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
other people's noises for their Powers when he has no idea what they
mean.
Mr. Houstman defines his terms better or worse, while Martijn
merely spouts, "Well, He Said..." But his "source" is so /Holy/ he
doesn't hafta say "who" it is.
Flown into any good frog ponds lately?